shawty1984's forum posts

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

I guess instead of HD twins; will need to call'em the SD triplets amright ? :twisted:

SecretPolice

HD wanabes?

On your big screen HDTV; try Wii Tennis and then try 360 / PS3 Virtua Tennis ( native 1080P ) and you tell me if you see teh HD difference. :o

For that matter, try any Wii game apposed to any 360 game on a HDTV !! :shock: :P



Fail, you can't compare resolutions like that. For that to work you would need to plug a PS3 into a SD TV and then into a HD TV so the difference between the two would work. With your example you may as well pick up an orange and say to people it's and apple.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

in the early days of 1080i it was actually a bit of a piece of jargon being used as a claim as essentially 720p and 1080i were the same

ionusX



Nonsense. 720p and 1080i have never and will never be the same. 720p is 1280 x 720 and 1080i is 1920 x 1080, totally different. The actual image of 1080i should look exactly like 1080p as they both have the same amount of detail in them, the only thing to suffer would be motion and even that's not bad on decent TV's.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

[QUOTE="Lox_Cropek"]

Which resolution provides better image quality? 720p or 1080i?

DryBomber5

I never actually knew the difference between 1080i and 1080p, but I'm pretty sure 1080i is better than 720p. What screen size are you using? If it's small, you will hardly notice a difference.



Screen size alone has nothing to do with it, you also need to know viewing distance. You can notice the difference on small screens if sat close.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

What I really don't like about 9/11 Truthers is that they RUINED any chance of mature and public discussions about what really happened that day. The U.S. government comes up with the 9/11 Commission Report which is (to my knowledge) the absolute WORST put-together public document I've seen released by our government. It didn't include important eye witness testimonies of people who had a different side of the story, it didn't mention all the f**k-ups that the government made and didn't show how our multi-billion dollar defense systems and intelligence agencies failed to prevent an event that they were informed was going to happen weeks before it did, and the Commission Report was completely one-sided. This Report wasn't an easy pill for the public to swallow, but the 9/11 Truthers gave the public a glass of water and now the public just forgot about this and I think the majority of us just accept the government's story for what it is. I was presented with much evidence (I don't believe everything in the film, but many things they say do make a lot of sense) and I believe the towers were brought down not only with planes but with explosives (mostly because of witnesses and video footage). Also, the government did very suspicious things like immediately removing video footage of a gas station camera near the Pentagon that recorded the "plane crash", immediately removing 3 of the 4 black boxes from Ground Zero and never revealing anything found inside and claiming the 4th black box was never recovered even though they're designed to withstand almost any kind of destruction. And what about the plane that hit the Pentagon? Where did the plane go after it "crashed"? Did it really get completely destroyed like the government says so? And who was in the plane that hit the Pentagon? Where they mentioned today during the anniversary along with the 3,000+ that were mentioned? The government just did really suspicious things but it's not okay to question them anymore because the Truthers came out and started jumping to conclusions, saying the government wanted this to happen even though THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE to support this. It's acceptable to talk badly about our government when it comes to almost everything.......but the Truthers have made disagreeing with our government's side of the 9/11 story taboo. It's no longer okay to ask questions about 9/11 that might clash with what was written in the 9/11 Commission Report. It's no longer okay to question the government on this matter. Oh no, now if you do that you're one of them. Now you believe Bush, Cheney and the terrorists were facebook pals who partied and got together and came up with a plan to bring down the towers to start a war for oil and blah blah blah blah........and people think you're some kind of tinfoil-hat wearing paranoid lunatic . Damn you Truthers with your crazy conspiracy theories.TheBigBadGRIM


All of that can be eaily answered, you just need to stop watching 'truther' videos that spread lies and wrong information.

Why is it suspicious to take 'evidence'. See that makes no sense. It would be more suspicious if they didn't take it. It's what thePolice/FBI/CIA/CID do, they take evidence to use.

The explosives thing is nonsense. Not for least that it wouldn't be possible to rig a building that size, let alone two plus WTC 7 with explosives without anyone knowing it would take months and a team of people, it's just not possible. Then you have the fact both buildings failed from the impact point, you can clearly see this in videos. Plus the fact, how are explosives supposed to withstand a plane crash and fire?

I can't even be bothered to go through the rest of your post. The questions you ask can easily be answered with common sense and evidence finding on the internet.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

building 7 is rather strangemingmao3046


It's really not though is it. Two of the tallest buildings in the world just collapesed right next to it which surely would weaken the foundations. Debris from the WTC 1/2 (whicever one it was) caused damage to WTC7 and left a big hole in the side of the building. Fires raged for hours without much effort to put them out which WEAKENED the steel. WTC7 was fully involved with fire. Don't believe people that tell you other wise, they are lying. It never collapesed at freefall speed, the top also known as the penthouse collapsed before the rest of the building. But forget all that, the nonsense that people believe a building that size could be rigged for a controlled demolition without anyone seeing is just plainly nonsense.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

I'm not prepared to out and out claim that the US government actively participated in the 9/11 attacks. However, I have seen enough evidence and testimony contrary to the official story that I think they knew what was coming at the very least. The fact that Rumsfeld came on TV on 9/10/01 and announced that they had "lost" 2.3 trillion dollars is very suspect. So that happens and then the 9/11 attacks occur, including a direct hit on the Pentagon in an area of the building where records of such monetary activity would be kept. How the hell do you lose 2.3 trillion dollars? How does that happen the day before terrorists hit the Pentagon and the WTC with planes?

And how the hell can people explain the witnesses who heard explosions in and around the basements of the towers BEFORE the planes hit? That sure as hell makes the freefall of the buildings seem more plausible.

At this point I think that a force bigger than the US government was in control of events. 9/11 took away many personal liberties and privacies, and turned the US in the direction that we're going in today. That is to say that we're going down.

hartsickdiscipl



What you have seen is notevidence. More lies or untruths. The 2.3 trilliion was known about long before 9/11, so what does this have to do with anything?

Also, could these witnesses be mistaken? Maybe it was when the plane hit and the jet fuel flowed down the elevator shafts. To do a controlled demolition on a building that size would require a lot more explosions that what a few people might have heard in the basement.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I can think of lots of benefits for the US. For starters it paved the way to attack Iraq and take Saddam Hussein, some in power could have thought that starting a war would help the US economy like it had happened before. Other than that they could gain strategic and economic resources if they managed to control Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of those things probably backfired but it doesn't mean there were no perceived benefits from doing all that.kuraimen

So they are smart enough (I really thinkg conspiracy theories give the US Goverment way too much credit) to pull of an attack like 9/11, and such an attack would need thousands of people to take part in, and managed to keep it a scret, yet dumb enough to not see the problems of attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, and not see easier ways to control them. For Iraq, you can crash a fighter in the no-fly zone claim Saddam shot it down, and set up other attacks on soldiers in Kuwait and blame that on Iraq, and now you have reason to start a war. For Afghanistan they could support the Taliban or start pushing funds to the Northern Alliance.

The thing I find most plausible is that the US government or at least a part of the US government knew that 9/11 was going to happen and they let it happen so they can afterwards justify the wars easily.



The most plausable thing is that they knew a terroist attack was on the cards. Knowing that and knowing 9/11 was going to happen are two very different things.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

A problem most people who think 9/11 was an inside job have is they can't really explain what benefit the US would have got from staging the worst terrorist attack in US history. I just don't see it. We lost billions of dollars from the initial attack itself and the price tag just kept growing from there.

Maybe he was on to something. Or maybe it was just a lucky guess. I remember late that night when I finally got home I went onto a forum on the Namco website (yeah, a video game forum of all places) and one of the posts about it with a time stamp around 10AM mentioned that it was probably bin Laden.

Fact of the matter is that he doesn't like the US and had plenty of motive for the attacks. He also admitted to being the mastermind.

racer8dan

One thing I find interesting is how Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence, announced that they lost 2.3 Trillion Dollars...the day before 9/11...



That was announced well before 9/11, not the day before. See these intresting stories are not that intresting when you find out the truth.