wolfy

Aye of course it is.

What do you mean by independent thinker? Did I ever say that I never look at stuff and it's all from my own mind? To question stuff, you have to look at the evidence out there and dissect what you believe is right and discard what you believe is off the mark..that's what I do and I don;t profess to be bang on with EVERYTHING.

No mate, I'm well up on it, I've studied it as well.

So there's one plane theory killed off right. Now if that theory has been fed to the public don't you think the other have as well. Don't you think it makes a lot of sense as to why NORAD didn't mobilise and fighter jets to intercept......because there were no hijacked planes, just rigged news footage. Don't you find it a tad strange how all news channels had experts talking about who done it and why , all done as fast as lightning.. Most witnesses were part of some news channel, whether it was the wife of an exec or whatever.

Parky, I can say the same to you...think a little bit more on this. You obviously question things, so go and scrutinise the plane footage. Saturate yourself in it all and then come back and tell me planes crashed into those towers. I'll say it again...planes do not fully melt into steel. Here's something else for you. do you believe a plane can go through that building and emerge out of the other side with it's nose fully complete?

This topic might be on loads of sites..so what.I'm discussing them on here.

I don't think it ludicrous at all.4 planes crashed that day, we are told and all 4 planes disintegrated into supposedly tiny pieces...no tail fins, nothing except at the Pentagon where they showed a small engine that was not off any 757 as it was far too small. Watch any footage of the planes going into the towers in slow motion and tell me in all seriousness if a plane is capable of doing that. I'd even be willing to relax my stance and allow the fuselage to go right in but we still have wing tips and a tail fin that melt in....wing tips...I mean, I can't understand how anyone can think plane wings can do cartoon type holes into steel buildings.

Fair enough. It still leaves me with questions though. You see, condensing is one thing but there has to be a vent for the condenser to work, it cannot just be a sealed unit if it has to operate something, for example operating the drive for the propellers. Apparently you cannot just shut down a reactor as we are led to believe so even sort of shutting it down in port would still leave it fissioning, not that I believe it happens, yet for me to accept nuclear power in how it operates I need to know the system in how it fully does what it does inside something like a sub. A sub is a sealed unit in itself for obvious reasons, so I'd also like to know how they refuel them, given the fact that in nuclear power stations, they are lifted from the reactor and moved to a spent fuel pool, whilst still submerged but how can they do this on a sub safely. This is more for Rikko but if you have any thoughts then fair do's. I could barely and I mean barely be swayed slightly by nuclear power stations but I'm having a real hard problem with nuclear subs.

And do you think we should all just blindly accept spin no matter what and never question anything?

Well from now on, that is how I will answer you.

Such as?

PWHETDBETDG.

Have a word will you.

FAO Rikko: I have a few questions for you. I read up on how a nuclear powered submarine works as in propulsion and was surprised to see that some have 2 Nuclear reactors. Now I know how I'm led to believe how they work, yet I have a few problems with it. I was wondering if you could shed any light onto it using basic speak that is understandable to myself and not scientific terms used to baffle. I'd appreciate if you could use your own words and not any copy and paste from sites as they can sometimes leave more questions than what they answer. If you don't want to, that's fair enough but here goes. 1....What is the purpose of having TWO nuclear reactors on one submarine , why not just one as they apparently produce an enormous amount of electricity from the steam they generate which I would have thought would easily power something like a submarine. 2...When a submarine comes into port, how do they turn off the nuclear reactors in terms of them not producing any steam as I'm led to believe they take a lot of shutting down and cannot be shut down fully. 3..In nuclear power stations, you see steam stacks that they say are used from the process of condensing , I was wondering how a submerged submarine manages this. Cheers.

Ok that's fair enough, if that's your mindset Fish. At least you aren't closed off where you can't see that we are being taken for a ride and taken for mugs and fed propaganda by the scoop load. As astounding as it seems to people that they couldn't pull off the 9/11 hoax , you have to look at who controls the media. Now one thing is perfectly clear to me and that is, those who pull of this type of stuff also know there are people out there that are inquisitive enough to study and dissect any events which they push out as REAL. Those at the top aren't stupid enough to believe there will not be questions, so they head fuck us, or shall I say, they head fuck the one's that pick up on anomalies by playing conspiracy theorists against each other by using various dis-info sites and forums. This is my belief and it seems fairly clear to me that this is what goes on. A for instance: I remember looking at two video's from people who questioned 9/11 and like a nosey bastard I watched both. One was called loose change and the other was called 9/11 in PLANE sight. Loose change covered some good stuff but it didn't cover the no plane theory. I then looked at the 9/11 in plane sight, which showed something under the planes, like a flash or something. I'm sat there thinking, no way have these planes melted into buildings like that and it really had my head fucked up. You see, even then, without any views of anything else, I knew in my own mind that planes do not fully melt into steel buildings all the way in like the building was made of soft butter, so I delved a bit more and typed things into search engines ...stuff like ' did planes really crash into wtc' and ' are the wtc planes fake.' Sure enough there were little snippets coming out at the time but not a lot and as time went on, forums started popping up about aspects of everything about that day, yet some appeared to flirt round certain issues and others hit it head on, so it was a case of being patient and not jumping into one view against the other. I watched many of Alex Jones's takes on it and other things and to a full on theorist he appears to be one staunch person against certain stuff yet I don't subscribe to a lot of what he says as I believe he is a classic dis-info type character that runs with certain issues to a point and side steps many blatant one's that give people a much clearer view on things. I could be barking up the wrong tree with some of my thoughts and I don;t deny that but I am 100% certain in my mind that no planes were hijacked on 9/11 and those 3 towers wtc1/2 and 7 were controlled demolition and had been rigged weeks or months beforehand, maybe longer. One thing for sure is, what we were shown on the morning it happened was not real footage of those gaping towers and especially planes hitting. I think the area surrounding the towers was already cleared in advance and that the towers were empty or virtually empty...certainly of items such as filing cabinets, desks, computers and stuff like that, basically like an empty house after a family has moved. Anyone in those buildings were at best on lower floors with easy access to escape . All the rest was just actors and stand in's ...those who would sell their sole to the devil for a small reward. That's my take but the full event of that day stinks to high heaven.

I really don't understand your mindset Fish.I agree with your point on the Government allowing stuff to happen for their cause, yet I can't understand how you can say it and them dismiss any possibility of faking a 9/11 for a similar goal. You have me scratching my head here Fish, you really do. Anyway, I'll chat tomorrow, I'm off to bed. Goodnight.

What you are suggesting is infinitely worse than what I am pushing. I'm talking about altered images and downright faked witness testimony and you are now saying it's possible the Government allowed 3000 people to be killed. Basically that's what you are saying right? Yet you are also saying that they would not allow TV fakery of this event. Am I missing something here Fish?

Ok Renton, let's put emotion aside because the whole purpose of a hoax on this scale is the reliance of the public to be swayed by the emotion of seeing people hurt and especially kids. In no way shape or form would I disrespect the dead or anyone who has suffered in this, yet the purpose of deciding a hoax, is to look at the evidence and the blatent TV fakery, which includes every frame of video or photo, which can obviously depict many characters in the said frames of video and photo. Nobody is mocking real life people who has suffered from this, it's about exposing the fakery behind the make up of it all. Having said all that, I will now answer your questions. ......................................................................... Do you think this photo and others like it are fake. ANSWER: Yes I do. Given that 99% of people would disagree, and there's at least some chance you are wrong (assuming you think it is faked, and I think you do), do you think its appropriate for this material to be published in the way it has been?....The way you have put this makes it difficult to answer without emotion being involved, so let's clarify that the VIDEO evidence is in question, which includes the characters in the VIDEO. To me, it's 100% manipulated which means and characters depicted in the video are fake. I can't be any clearer than that, yet I'd also like to add that I do not want to see anyone debating this by using EMOTION of that day and would like to see anyone debating it, simply use evidence or pictures that can refute what is being believed by myself. I'd just like to add that I don't know steve and because he shares similar thoughts, he should not be tarred with the hatred some people have for me. The lad has put some excellent input into here regardless of it being against the grain and I would appreciate it if the admin let it flow as I was told I can post my batshit comments on my own topic of which ANYONE is welcome to contribute to even if they decide to slaughter me. Nobody is mocking kids or anyone in video...it's about the actual blurry photo shopped images that's being discussed.

You know about networks, fair enough. You know jack shit about satellites, except what you are told they do. You only believe relays and bouncing signals off the ionosphere are not enough because you have been told, it's all to do with satellites.I'm not calling bullshit on you for this, I'm calling bullshit on those who made this shit up. For example bogus scientists at the very top. The same goes for Rikko. I'm no calling bullshit on him directly. He's been taught by someone who taught someone who taught someone, all the way to the top where bogus science brought it into the fore (my opinion) I just don't believe both of those exist but I couldn't swear on it, I just don;t see how both can work and certainly not how I am led to believe anyway.

I don't know if no one died on that day. What I do suspect is the number is massively fabricated. Hide on a message board? I'm a name on a message board just like you are, are you hiding?

Not at all. I don't think I know better than anyone or that I'm smarter or anything else. I merely question stuff that doesn't add up 'to me.' If I question an event, then I'm naturally questioning those who are involved in that event. For instance, let's take Felix. To most people, he is a hero, daredevil and one brave man for what he's supposedly done. To me, he is part of a hoax, so he comes into question with me. That goes for anyone involved in anything that I think is hoaxed in some ways. Now granted, I COULD be way off in some things and barking up the wrong tree, yet I haven't had any proof or any real rebuttals of my thoughts and until I'm stumped for an answer, I will continue to question. Somebody who believes things are true cannot just tell me they're true and cite that they know because it's official and is well documented as it proves nothing other than a belief in something that can and does get easily manipulated. People wonder why I question many things yet can't seem to understand that if I find one or two events extremely suspect, I'm gonna find many others suspect too.

No I don't.If I come across as arrogant to some, then that isn't my intention. I'm discussing a topic and 99.9% of people do not agree with my stance, so I suppose I'm bound to come across as something aren't I. You and many others come across as extremely arrogant but I'm ok with it, it's just chat.

Must try harder.

Seriously, you need to take a break.

You really need to calm yourself down. Take a shower or something and do some yoga, apparently it relaxes you. What people put on other forums is out of my hands. I am not responsible what other people chat about, so take a chill pill kiddo.