Lyte Trip is a pod man

Calcas · 4th June 2007, 05:56 PM

I thought Lyte was only into the Pentagon nonsense and chemtrails.

But, now it looks like he has turned it up a notch.

"Too bad there is still a device on the bottom of 175 that should not be there."

He must have been watching the Dylan/Killtown slugfest.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...08#post2661908

T.A.M. · 4th June 2007, 05:59 PM

Yes I am curious if Dylan is going to go back to the pods from version #1 of LC, or if others are picking up this tossed aside theory, because Dylan has since abandoned it, and hence it is a reusable unclaimed piece of the CT pie.

TAM

Calcas · 4th June 2007, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Yes I am curious if Dylan is going to go back to the pods from version #1 of LC, or if others are picking up this tossed aside theory, because Dylan has since abandoned it, and hence it is a reusable unclaimed piece of the CT pie.

TAM

Lyte had knee pads on last time he was around Dylan so it wouldn't surprise me.

How old (or new) is that audio with Dylan and Killtown?

Hyperviolet · 4th June 2007, 06:12 PM

I highly doubt Dylan is going to go back to the Pods. Even if he thinks it, he won't publicly endorse it like he did in Loose Change 1.

On KillTowns TV Fakery theory... why would the conspirators fake a video with a so called pod and a flash in it? I mean if I were going to make a video from scratch id make sure there was nothing that could be miscontrued as a physical anomaly. In fact, first thing id do is fake better shots of the plane.. and be damn sure to zoom in on the word AMERICAN or even get an AA logo in there.

Redtail · 4th June 2007, 06:33 PM

strathmeyer · 4th June 2007, 06:34 PM

Can someone summerize the pod theory for those of us who don't live in this forum?

Alareth · 4th June 2007, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by strathmeyer

Can someone summerize the pod theory for those of us who don't live in this forum?

Basically the claim is that it wasn't flight 175 that hit the tower, it was a military transport with a bottom mounted pod that fired missles into the WTC.

The entire basis of this comes from an odd reflection seen for a second or two on a poor quality video clip.

A W Smith · 4th June 2007, 06:42 PM

so is he a pod Hugger or a .... Podophile?

SpitfireIX · 4th June 2007, 07:05 PM

so is he a pod Hugger or a .... Podophile?

Tempted as I am to start using this expression, I'm afraid child molestation is too much of a hot-button issue for some people, and it is definitely no laughing matter (I used to joke about it, until I became friends with a woman who had walked in on the babysitter molesting her daughter).

Anyway, "Pod People" has such wonderful connotations of mindless, zombie-like behavior among those "truthers" who believe in it, and paranoia and hysteria among those who don't.

See my post on the subject in the thread that spawned this one.

Thunder · 4th June 2007, 07:23 PM

Jesus H Christ. The pod stupidity was debunked YEARS ago!!!!!. Some guy took a toy 757 and held it up to a lamp with a similar angle to the flight in NYC. Sure enough, a "pod" shadow was visible on the bottom of the toy.

But, in all honesty, this is good. The pod theory is completaly moronic, and the more moronic theories they spew, the easier it is to annihilate them. Viva la Pod Theory!!!! Viva la No Planes Theory!!!

hellaeon · 4th June 2007, 08:35 PM

You know for some reason when you say pod people I picture the umpa lumpas in Charlie and the chocolate factory.

gumboot · 4th June 2007, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by hellaeon

You know for some reason when you say pod people I picture the umpa lumpas in Charlie and the chocolate factory.

I imagine the weird little dudes in "The Dark Crystal".

-Gumboot

Arkan_Wolfshade · 4th June 2007, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by hellaeon

You know for some reason when you say pod people I picture the umpa lumpas in Charlie and the chocolate factory.

Grunka, lunka, boopity bum
Pod missle theories are really dumb
Grunka, lunka, doopity doo
Killtown and Lyte Trip believe in it too

Cl1mh4224rd · 4th June 2007, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

I imagine the weird little dudes in "The Dark Crystal".

Ahh, the Podlings.

SpitfireIX · 4th June 2007, 08:54 PM

Uh-oh, now you've done it Arkan--I'm starting to get some ideas for 9/11 debunking filk.

Quad4_72 · 4th June 2007, 10:06 PM

Yeah I was confused when he posted about the pod in there. I thought it was a completely extinct fantasy.

steve s · 4th June 2007, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by strathmeyer

Can someone summerize the pod theory for those of us who don't live in this forum?

The underside of the 757/767 has a bit of a bulge where the landing gear stow away. The morning sunlight reflecting off that bulge made it appear to be some sort of pod, especially when viewed in low-res images.

The troofers concluded that the pod must have held a missile (of course) which was fired just before the plane hit the tower. Their reason for believing this seems to come from the belief that an aluminum airplane couldn't smash its way through steel beams. But this was easily debunked by showing that the kinetic energy of a jetliner travelling at about 500 mph was equivalent to thousands of pounds of explosives. So the "pod theory" quietly went away. Now it seems to be back.

Steve S.

Gravy · 4th June 2007, 10:31 PM

Of course he's a pod man. Chemtrails don't grow on trees, you know.

gumboot · 4th June 2007, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Ahh, the Podlings.

That's them.

-Gumboot

Unfit4Command · 4th June 2007, 10:37 PM

I've always thought the "pod theory" is retarded. What the hell is the point of putting a device on the bottom of Flight 175, and firing missiles into the building when a 767 is about the smash into it? I also never understood how anyone can take themselves seriously when they believe both the "pod/missile" theories, and also believe that explosives brought down the Towers.

So...the government landed Flight 175, and flew a plane that fired missiles into the building before striking into the South Tower. THEN the explosives that were planted brought down the building. Makes sense, right?

Zep · 4th June 2007, 10:51 PM

Sure!

Corsair 115 · 4th June 2007, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

The troofers concluded that the pod must have held a missile (of course) which was fired just before the plane hit the tower.

Why don't these missile launchings show up on any of the numerous angles of the event? Especially since missile firings are quite easy to spot what with the rocket engine exhaust and smoke trail. And that's not even taking into account the timing involved of launching missiles the briefest of moments before impact.

Zep · 5th June 2007, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Why don't these missile launchings show up on any of the numerous angles of the event? Especially since missile firings are quite easy to spot what with the rocket engine exhaust and smoke trail. And that's not even taking into account the timing involved of launching missiles the briefest of moments before impact.

...using a remote controlled plane, according to some other nut on this forum!

twinstead · 5th June 2007, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Why don't these missile launchings show up on any of the numerous angles of the event? Especially since missile firings are quite easy to spot what with the rocket engine exhaust and smoke trail. And that's not even taking into account the timing involved of launching missiles the briefest of moments before impact.

Even worse, if you ever get a chance to see the video in question, the 'pod' fires its 'missile' a split second AFTER the nose of the plane enters the building. It then strikes the WTC even before the tail enters.

Somehow they were able to get a hold of some reverse-engineered alien technology missile that goes from 500mph to the speed of light in an instant.

qarnos · 5th June 2007, 03:14 AM

Isn't firing missiles from the plane a bit like shooting bullets at a battleship from the nose of a torpedo?

qarnos · 5th June 2007, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

Even worse, if you ever get a chance to see the video in question, the 'pod' fires its 'missile' a split second AFTER the nose of the plane enters the building. It then strikes the WTC even before the tail enters.

Somehow they were able to get a hold of some reverse-engineered alien technology missile that goes from 500mph to the speed of light in an instant.

Roswell!!!1!!one!

I knew it!

MG1962 · 5th June 2007, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Isn't firing missiles from the plane a bit like shooting bullets at a battleship from the nose of a torpedo?

And your problem with that exactly? How else do you explain a flimsy aluminum torpedo being able to penerate armour plating

CurtC · 5th June 2007, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Why don't these missile launchings show up on any of the numerous angles of the event?

When the nose of UAL175 hit the tower, there was a large flash of light on multiple videos. As a matter of fact, that's what got the whole pod idea rolling in the first place. The idea was that the missile was launched when the plane was within feet (milliseconds) of hitting the tower, apparently to assure penetration, or make a more impressive explosion, or something. I'm sure in this crowd I don't need to spell out the multiple problems with the whole idea, one so idiotic that all but the nuttiest Troothers have abandoned it.

SpitfireIX · 5th June 2007, 06:20 AM

Somehow they were able to get a hold of some reverse-engineered alien technology missile that goes from 500mph to the speed of light in an instant.

Shhhh--don't give the woo-woos any ideas.

CurtC · 5th June 2007, 06:52 AM

Spitfire, I see you're using bold to indicate a post that you're quoting, but that's confusing to the regulars here. Bold is normally used for highlighting parts of your own post that you'd like to emphasize. We have the quote and /quote tags available for quoting others, and even a quote button at the bottom of each post to make it easy.

I appreciate your being here, I'm just pointing out something that would make it easier on everyone else.

SpitfireIX · 5th June 2007, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by CurtC

Spitfire, I see you're using bold to indicate a post that you're quoting, but that's confusing to the regulars here. Bold is normally used for highlighting parts of your own post that you'd like to emphasize. We have the quote and /quote tags available for quoting others, and even a quote button at the bottom of each post to make it easy.

Sorry about that. I know how to use quote tags, but a few of the regulars at BAUT Forum, including our most respected and knowledgeable poster, use the bolding style. It makes point-by-point rebuttals much easier, plus you can then use quote tags to get around the limit on nested quotations. Upon review, however, I note that PhantomWolf, who is also a regular at BAUT, uses bolding there, but uses quote tags here.

Originally Posted by CurtC

I appreciate your being here, I'm just pointing out
something that would make it easier on everyone else.

Point taken in the spirt in which it was intended. When in Rome . . .

Possibly I will use the bolding style here occasionally for point-by-point; however, I will be certain to so state at the beginning of the post, and to clearly indicate the attribution denoted by each font.

T.A.M. · 5th June 2007, 09:12 AM

The truthers are like kids with lego blocks. Now Dylan has used some of his blocks to build his "theory" re:9/11, but has discarded blocks that didnt quite fit right, or didn't appeal to him. These reject blocks, one mans junk, is anothers godsend. So, people like Lyte, who are still looking for some additional Legos to build their "Theory" take up the discarded blocks, and patch them onto their own model.

The "Pod Theory" is a pretty shoddy block though, I have to say.

TAM

Garb · 5th June 2007, 01:48 PM

What exactly is a "chemtrail" anyway?

I've heard this word tossed around a lot and I never really got the concept.

Vincent Vega · 5th June 2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Garb

What exactly is a "chemtrail" anyway?

I've heard this word tossed around a lot and I never really got the concept.

Never got the concept? That's a good sign.

why ask when you can goggle? Teach a man to fish and all that...

OK I take pity on you. Go straight to THE SOURCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtra...spiracy_theory

Alareth · 5th June 2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Garb

What exactly is a "chemtrail" anyway?

I've heard this word tossed around a lot and I never really got the concept.

Contrails from high altitute aircraft.

The woo's insist that they are deliberately sprayed streams of chemicals the government is using to control/experiment on/kill us.

Pardalis · 5th June 2007, 02:15 PM

I always thought he was a pot man...

Civilized Worm · 5th June 2007, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

so is he a pod Hugger or a .... Podophile?

Tempted as I am to start using this expression, I'm afraid child molestation is too much of a hot-button issue for some people, and it is definitely no laughing matter (I used to joke about it, until I became friends with a woman who had walked in on the babysitter molesting her daughter).

Lots of things stop being funny when they affect you, doesn't mean the rest of us can't laugh.

Originally Posted by MG1962

And your problem with that exactly? How else do you explain a flimsy aluminum torpedo being able to penerate armour plating

Maybe it had a pointy bit on the end.

Garb · 5th June 2007, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

Never got the concept? That's a good sign.

why ask when you can goggle? Teach a man to fish and all that...

OK I take pity on you. Go straight to THE SOURCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtra...spiracy_theory

Ah.

4th June 2007, 06:12 PM	#4
Hyperviolet Damnum Fatale Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Glaschu Posts: 988	I highly doubt Dylan is going to go back to the Pods. Even if he thinks it, he won't publicly endorse it like he did in Loose Change 1. On KillTowns TV Fakery theory... why would the conspirators fake a video with a so called pod and a flash in it? I mean if I were going to make a video from scratch id make sure there was nothing that could be miscontrued as a physical anomaly. In fact, first thing id do is fake better shots of the plane.. and be damn sure to zoom in on the word AMERICAN or even get an AA logo in there.
	__________________ The English are worried about the Euro being brought in because of loss of national identity and rising prices. In Scotland, people are just worried in case they have to close Poundstretcher.

4th June 2007, 06:33 PM	#5
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

4th June 2007, 06:39 PM	#7
Alareth Expert Expertologist Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 6,676	Originally Posted by strathmeyer Can someone summerize the pod theory for those of us who don't live in this forum? Basically the claim is that it wasn't flight 175 that hit the tower, it was a military transport with a bottom mounted pod that fired missles into the WTC. The entire basis of this comes from an odd reflection seen for a second or two on a poor quality video clip.
	__________________ Pixelated Reality \| Alareth Does Art! Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak

4th June 2007, 06:42 PM	#8
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	so is he a pod Hugger or a .... Podophile?
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

4th June 2007, 08:35 PM	#11
hellaeon Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: City of Burning Churches, Australia Posts: 1,493	You know for some reason when you say pod people I picture the umpa lumpas in Charlie and the chocolate factory.
	__________________ Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. - Carl Sagan I don't exactly have a Phd in physics. I have something much better. Common sense. - pagan How does one change their mind without losing face after staunchly supporting a single point of view for years? It's quite alright, you are expected to maintain your opinion even if those responsible for 9/11 confess to their crimes. - Irony, MirageMemories style

4th June 2007, 05:56 PM	#1
Calcas Master of my Domain Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,472	Lyte Trip is a pod man I thought Lyte was only into the Pentagon nonsense and chemtrails. But, now it looks like he has turned it up a notch. "Too bad there is still a device on the bottom of 175 that should not be there." He must have been watching the Dylan/Killtown slugfest. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...08#post2661908

4th June 2007, 05:59 PM	#2
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Yes I am curious if Dylan is going to go back to the pods from version #1 of LC, or if others are picking up this tossed aside theory, because Dylan has since abandoned it, and hence it is a reusable unclaimed piece of the CT pie. TAM

4th June 2007, 06:06 PM	#3
Calcas Master of my Domain Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,472	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Yes I am curious if Dylan is going to go back to the pods from version #1 of LC, or if others are picking up this tossed aside theory, because Dylan has since abandoned it, and hence it is a reusable unclaimed piece of the CT pie. TAM Lyte had knee pads on last time he was around Dylan so it wouldn't surprise me. How old (or new) is that audio with Dylan and Killtown?

4th June 2007, 06:34 PM	#6
strathmeyer seriously unable to be serious Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Posts: 2,382	Can someone summerize the pod theory for those of us who don't live in this forum?

4th June 2007, 07:05 PM	#9
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,830	so is he a pod Hugger or a .... Podophile? Tempted as I am to start using this expression, I'm afraid child molestation is too much of a hot-button issue for some people, and it is definitely no laughing matter (I used to joke about it, until I became friends with a woman who had walked in on the babysitter molesting her daughter). Anyway, "Pod People" has such wonderful connotations of mindless, zombie-like behavior among those "truthers" who believe in it, and paranoia and hysteria among those who don't. See my post on the subject in the thread that spawned this one.

4th June 2007, 07:23 PM	#10
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Jesus H Christ. The pod stupidity was debunked YEARS ago!!!!!. Some guy took a toy 757 and held it up to a lamp with a similar angle to the flight in NYC. Sure enough, a "pod" shadow was visible on the bottom of the toy. But, in all honesty, this is good. The pod theory is completaly moronic, and the more moronic theories they spew, the easier it is to annihilate them. Viva la Pod Theory!!!! Viva la No Planes Theory!!!

4th June 2007, 08:37 PM	#12
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,124	Originally Posted by hellaeon You know for some reason when you say pod people I picture the umpa lumpas in Charlie and the chocolate factory. I imagine the weird little dudes in "The Dark Crystal". -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

4th June 2007, 08:43 PM	#13
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Originally Posted by hellaeon You know for some reason when you say pod people I picture the umpa lumpas in Charlie and the chocolate factory. Grunka, lunka, boopity bum Pod missle theories are really dumb Grunka, lunka, doopity doo Killtown and Lyte Trip believe in it too
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

4th June 2007, 08:51 PM	#14
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by gumboot I imagine the weird little dudes in "The Dark Crystal". Ahh, the Podlings.

4th June 2007, 08:54 PM	#15
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,830	Uh-oh, now you've done it Arkan--I'm starting to get some ideas for 9/11 debunking filk.

4th June 2007, 10:06 PM	#16
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Yeah I was confused when he posted about the pod in there. I thought it was a completely extinct fantasy.
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

4th June 2007, 10:20 PM	#17
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,661	Originally Posted by strathmeyer Can someone summerize the pod theory for those of us who don't live in this forum? The underside of the 757/767 has a bit of a bulge where the landing gear stow away. The morning sunlight reflecting off that bulge made it appear to be some sort of pod, especially when viewed in low-res images. The troofers concluded that the pod must have held a missile (of course) which was fired just before the plane hit the tower. Their reason for believing this seems to come from the belief that an aluminum airplane couldn't smash its way through steel beams. But this was easily debunked by showing that the kinetic energy of a jetliner travelling at about 500 mph was equivalent to thousands of pounds of explosives. So the "pod theory" quietly went away. Now it seems to be back. Steve S.
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,661	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

4th June 2007, 10:31 PM	#18
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Of course he's a pod man. Chemtrails don't grow on trees, you know.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

4th June 2007, 10:35 PM	#19
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,124	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd Ahh, the Podlings. That's them. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

4th June 2007, 10:37 PM	#20
Unfit4Command Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 730	I've always thought the "pod theory" is retarded. What the hell is the point of putting a device on the bottom of Flight 175, and firing missiles into the building when a 767 is about the smash into it? I also never understood how anyone can take themselves seriously when they believe both the "pod/missile" theories, and also believe that explosives brought down the Towers. So...the government landed Flight 175, and flew a plane that fired missiles into the building before striking into the South Tower. THEN the explosives that were planted brought down the building. Makes sense, right?
Unfit4Command Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 730	__________________

4th June 2007, 10:51 PM	#21
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Sure!
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

4th June 2007, 11:11 PM	#22
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,571	Originally Posted by steve s The troofers concluded that the pod must have held a missile (of course) which was fired just before the plane hit the tower. Why don't these missile launchings show up on any of the numerous angles of the event? Especially since missile firings are quite easy to spot what with the rocket engine exhaust and smoke trail. And that's not even taking into account the timing involved of launching missiles the briefest of moments before impact.
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

5th June 2007, 01:36 AM	#23
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 Why don't these missile launchings show up on any of the numerous angles of the event? Especially since missile firings are quite easy to spot what with the rocket engine exhaust and smoke trail. And that's not even taking into account the timing involved of launching missiles the briefest of moments before impact. ...using a remote controlled plane, according to some other nut on this forum!
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

5th June 2007, 02:59 AM	#24
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,576	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 Why don't these missile launchings show up on any of the numerous angles of the event? Especially since missile firings are quite easy to spot what with the rocket engine exhaust and smoke trail. And that's not even taking into account the timing involved of launching missiles the briefest of moments before impact. Even worse, if you ever get a chance to see the video in question, the 'pod' fires its 'missile' a split second AFTER the nose of the plane enters the building. It then strikes the WTC even before the tail enters. Somehow they were able to get a hold of some reverse-engineered alien technology missile that goes from 500mph to the speed of light in an instant.

5th June 2007, 03:14 AM	#25
qarnos Cold-hearted skeptic Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Melbourne, Austrylia Posts: 1,985	Isn't firing missiles from the plane a bit like shooting bullets at a battleship from the nose of a torpedo?
	__________________ "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]" - Greenpeace press release.

5th June 2007, 03:15 AM	#26
qarnos Cold-hearted skeptic Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Melbourne, Austrylia Posts: 1,985	Originally Posted by twinstead Even worse, if you ever get a chance to see the video in question, the 'pod' fires its 'missile' a split second AFTER the nose of the plane enters the building. It then strikes the WTC even before the tail enters. Somehow they were able to get a hold of some reverse-engineered alien technology missile that goes from 500mph to the speed of light in an instant. Roswell!!!1!!one! I knew it!
	__________________ "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]" - Greenpeace press release.

5th June 2007, 04:36 AM	#27
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Quote: Isn't firing missiles from the plane a bit like shooting bullets at a battleship from the nose of a torpedo? And your problem with that exactly? How else do you explain a flimsy aluminum torpedo being able to penerate armour plating

5th June 2007, 05:58 AM	#28
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 Why don't these missile launchings show up on any of the numerous angles of the event? When the nose of UAL175 hit the tower, there was a large flash of light on multiple videos. As a matter of fact, that's what got the whole pod idea rolling in the first place. The idea was that the missile was launched when the plane was within feet (milliseconds) of hitting the tower, apparently to assure penetration, or make a more impressive explosion, or something. I'm sure in this crowd I don't need to spell out the multiple problems with the whole idea, one so idiotic that all but the nuttiest Troothers have abandoned it.
	__________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.

5th June 2007, 06:20 AM	#29
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,830	Somehow they were able to get a hold of some reverse-engineered alien technology missile that goes from 500mph to the speed of light in an instant. Shhhh--don't give the woo-woos any ideas.

5th June 2007, 06:52 AM	#30
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Spitfire, I see you're using bold to indicate a post that you're quoting, but that's confusing to the regulars here. Bold is normally used for highlighting parts of your own post that you'd like to emphasize. We have the quote and /quote tags available for quoting others, and even a quote button at the bottom of each post to make it easy. I appreciate your being here, I'm just pointing out something that would make it easier on everyone else.
	__________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.

5th June 2007, 08:02 AM	#31
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,830	Originally Posted by CurtC Spitfire, I see you're using bold to indicate a post that you're quoting, but that's confusing to the regulars here. Bold is normally used for highlighting parts of your own post that you'd like to emphasize. We have the quote and /quote tags available for quoting others, and even a quote button at the bottom of each post to make it easy. Sorry about that. I know how to use quote tags, but a few of the regulars at BAUT Forum, including our most respected and knowledgeable poster, use the bolding style. It makes point-by-point rebuttals much easier, plus you can then use quote tags to get around the limit on nested quotations. Upon review, however, I note that PhantomWolf, who is also a regular at BAUT, uses bolding there, but uses quote tags here. Originally Posted by CurtC I appreciate your being here, I'm just pointing out something that would make it easier on everyone else. Point taken in the spirt in which it was intended. When in Rome . . . Possibly I will use the bolding style here occasionally for point-by-point; however, I will be certain to so state at the beginning of the post, and to clearly indicate the attribution denoted by each font.

5th June 2007, 09:12 AM	#32
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	The truthers are like kids with lego blocks. Now Dylan has used some of his blocks to build his "theory" re:9/11, but has discarded blocks that didnt quite fit right, or didn't appeal to him. These reject blocks, one mans junk, is anothers godsend. So, people like Lyte, who are still looking for some additional Legos to build their "Theory" take up the discarded blocks, and patch them onto their own model. The "Pod Theory" is a pretty shoddy block though, I have to say. TAM

5th June 2007, 01:48 PM	#33
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	What exactly is a "chemtrail" anyway? I've heard this word tossed around a lot and I never really got the concept.
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	__________________ When I changed to my new computer, I was worried about info on the old computer being used for identity theft and such. Folks said: "Just yank the hard drive" and somesuch. But I blew up the apartment. Only way to be safe. -kookbreaker

5th June 2007, 01:59 PM	#34
Vincent Vega Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 312	Google Originally Posted by Garb What exactly is a "chemtrail" anyway? I've heard this word tossed around a lot and I never really got the concept. Never got the concept? That's a good sign. why ask when you can goggle? Teach a man to fish and all that... OK I take pity on you. Go straight to THE SOURCE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtra...spiracy_theory
	Last edited by Vincent Vega; 5th June 2007 at 02:01 PM.

5th June 2007, 01:59 PM	#35
Alareth Expert Expertologist Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 6,676	Originally Posted by Garb What exactly is a "chemtrail" anyway? I've heard this word tossed around a lot and I never really got the concept. Contrails from high altitute aircraft. The woo's insist that they are deliberately sprayed streams of chemicals the government is using to control/experiment on/kill us.
	__________________ Pixelated Reality \| Alareth Does Art! Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak