The Fish 8989 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 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. No I'm not dismissing the possibility that the US Government permitted the attacks to happen. I'm saying the conspiracy you describe (no planes, internal demolitions etc.) is not possible. It's possible the US Government saw the benefits outweighed the loss of life. It's not possible they fabricated the hundreds of photos and videos, nor is it possible they brainwashed the eyewitnesses, nor is it possible they were in cahoots with the world's media. Did they know about the intended attacks? possibly Did they manufacture all the evidence to hide the fact they just blew up the towers? No, that's mental. I can't explain it any clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Explain how Steve found this forum then wolfy. Bearing in mind this is by some distance primarily a forum for Newcastle United fans, not conspiracy theorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Hey wolfy, can we change your name to Trueman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34469 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 How about StupidCunt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38768 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Am I missing something here Fish? Intelligence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 No I'm not dismissing the possibility that the US Government permitted the attacks to happen. I'm saying the conspiracy you describe (no planes, internal demolitions etc.) is not possible. It's possible the US Government saw the benefits outweighed the loss of life. It's not possible they fabricated the hundreds of photos and videos, nor is it possible they brainwashed the eyewitnesses, nor is it possible they were in cahoots with the world's media. Did they know about the intended attacks? possibly Did they manufacture all the evidence to hide the fact they just blew up the towers? No, that's mental. I can't explain it any clearer. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14055 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Aw, you were doing so well, nothing grossly offensive and inhuman until right near the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 All the rest was just actors and stand in's ...those who would sell their sole to the devil for a small reward. Are we talking pricey fish or the bottoms of their shoes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Aw, you were doing so well, nothing grossly offensive and inhuman until right near the end. Have a word will you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Are we talking pricey fish or the bottoms of their shoes? PWHETDBETDG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14055 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Have a word will you. I'd have more than a word with you, given the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'd have more than a word with you, given the chance. Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 PWHETDBETDG. Makes more sense than anything else you've posted in this thread tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Makes more sense than anything else you've posted in this thread tbh. Well from now on, that is how I will answer you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17783 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Have a word will you. you really don't get why you're offensive do you? Do you think it's offensive to deny the holocaust? Given your take on Hiroshima, I'm guessing not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8989 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'd say one reactor would act as a redundancy if one were to fail. The military do love a redundancy plan. Wolfy, the problem you're not getting is that there are far too many experts who state the planes did hit, far too much evidence that the planes did hit and far too many independent sources of information supporting the statement that the planes hit. And your side of the coin, it's conjecture. You're only looking for evidence that supports your belief and dismissing evidence that counters it regardless of it's veracity. You're claiming all the disparate sources of videos and photos are all liars, all the eyewitnesses are liars. The trouble is, for all these sources to be liars you would need a vast conspiracy and as you know the more people involved in a lie the quicker it's revealed. And you can say that only a few people started the lie and it spread, but mans nature is to question, so something as shocking as planes into a tower when nobody saw them wouldn't hold water. Not to mention the fact it's easier to blow up the towers, blame it on men with bombs instead of going through the incredible effort to fabricate the planes and convince vast swathes of people all over the planet that they saw something which they didn't. It's exciting to think their may be a big conspiracy... and questions about who crashed the planes, or if the government knew about it first are questions worth asking. Stating that there were no planes is ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) @ wolfy If it was just a demolition why complicate the conspiracy to the extent of using the planes? Makes no sense. The number of loose ends multiplies with each plane making the conspiracy ridiculously hard to stealth. Hundreds of more people are involved inc air traffic crew, data printouts, response and countermeasures protocols....It gets mind bogglingly difficult to cover up...That's why it's pretty clear the planes were real as a simple demoliton/bomb attack is a much smaller conspiracy to cover up and still blame on the chosen enemy. Think a little bit eh? Edited October 17, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8989 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 @ wolfy If it was just a demolition why complicate the conspiracy to the extent of using the planes? Makes no sense. The number of loose ends multiplies with each plane making the conspiracy ridiculously hard to stealth. Hundreds of more people are involved inc air traffic crew, data printouts, response and countermeasures protocols....It gets mind bogglingly difficult to cover up...That's why it's pretty clear the planes were real as a simple demoliton/bomb attack is a much smaller conspiracy to cover up and still blame on the chosen enemy. Think a little bit eh? What I was trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Edited October 17, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) In actual fact the plane element was mission critical to mobilise world opinion. The spectacle was the key. Omax and Wolfie you boys are green novices at this lark. What you should be asking is why the airforce didn't react as per concrete protocol when the transponders were turned off? Why there were dozens of distracting and obfuscating military and air defence drills going on per chance that very day? Why Cheney was in a bunker when Bush was at a school? Over the years I've been looking at 9/11 I've never changed my mind: It was a military coup from within the highest covert elements of the U.S. govt that took advantage of some rather fortunate events involving aspects of a terrorist plot. They rode the tiger and put down a marker regarding the foreign policy they wanted. It was also a message to Bush and the Pentagon that nobody was safe from them. It was well known that the Pentagon has its own air defence and missile systems. It was and is the most sophisticated co-ordinated and sophisticated defence net ever created. That something got though that is completey ridiculous. Edited October 17, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 you really don't get why you're offensive do you? Do you think it's offensive to deny the holocaust? Given your take on Hiroshima, I'm guessing not. And do you think we should all just blindly accept spin no matter what and never question anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'm going guess the answers because it doesn't seem like i couldn't have a decent guess!, wouldn't mind seeing Rikko's explanation (not because i doubt shit like wolfy but because the explation on how the fuel worked in the other thread was interesting) 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. I'm guessing it's the size of the reactors and the length of time they're "in service", they can stay out longer and use one when the other needs refueled without exposing where they are/were/have been, or they power different elements/work as a failover so a problem with one doesn't compromise the running of the systems. 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. lobbed into some sort of standby mode because it's drawing less power? think stop/start for modern cars but on a complicated scale? 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. Maybe they don't need to get rid of the steam though, are subs not like a "steam engine" in the sense the produced steam is used to drive the propeller, so when it drives the engine that works the propeller it could equally get cooled, turned back into water and then go through the process again in a loop? edit > re did the post to tag rikko 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5912 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 What I was trying to say. I had that argument with him prior to both of you at the start of this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17783 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 And do you think we should all just blindly accept spin no matter what and never question anything? No. Now answer my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now