• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
ElMondoHummus said:
Do NOT, I say again NOT tempt JimBenArm into posting pictures of himself in fishnets and debunking boots.

(*Shudder*)

:D
Click to expand...
And the pink tutu. You keep forgetting that.

You said that was your favorite part last time! Especially the frilly part.

Or was that the tutu you were talking about?
 
JimBenArm said:
And the pink tutu. You keep forgetting that.

You said that was your favorite part last time! Especially the frilly part.

Or was that the tutu you were talking about?
Click to expand...

It was Desmond Tutu.
 
Seeing as some in the skeptical community are using April 1st to do pranks where they pretend to have "seen the truth" and now believe one thing or another, or were involved in one thing or another.. I got to wondering if Truthers are doing the same. Like having threads where they proclaim that they finally realized that it was really just 19 hijackers after all.

I don't want to dig into their worlds too deeply to find out however. ;)
 
I was wondering if the Alex Jones -v- Jeff Rense catfight might be an April fool's joke, but it started on or before 30 March, so if it was meant to be one, they're doing it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Jamie McIntyre suspicious video

I think the video sequence here was reversed . Last part first and first part last. In the start of THIS incarnation he has no doubts about a plane having hit the Pentagon, but by the end he sees 'no evidence that a plane hit anywhere near the Pentagon' Explain that ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8 back asswards
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
In the start of THIS incarnation he has no doubts about a plane having hit the Pentagon, but by the end he sees 'no evidence that a plane hit anywhere near the Pentagon' Explain that ?
Click to expand...

I thought he said there was no sign that a plane had crashed near the Pentagon, in response to a question from the studio as to whether the plane had hit the ground before hitting the building. In other words, the plane didn't crash near the Pentagon, it crashed into the Pentagon.

Or is that too simple and obvious, and was there some clever way that he could give a more convincing fake story by contradicting himself? Maybe it was a clever double-bluff, to make it look like he was actually slightly confused by being at the centre of the action, and give the appearance of responding to events rather than reading from a script. Or maybe a triple bluff, to fool truthers into concocting stupid no-plane theories that nobody with half a functioning brain cell could take seriously for a microsecond. I guess we'll never know for sure.

One thing's for certain. There can't be a simple and obvious explanation. Those are never right, are they?

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom