Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Koojo

Confirmed by who? how? where?

ENT got it from a source in Russia.....that's all you need to know.....

A real McCarthy-ite an't ya koman...

Originally Posted by Latindancer

We can all see from the photo that there APPEARS to be no plane, but the hundreds of people who worked on the case say differently.

It's like the people at WTC7 hearing cracking and "explosions"....which were basically the building breaking down in places, structurally.

Yup, the mayor, who was the forensicist in charge of the site, the locals who witnessed something crashing, but not an airliner, and the local chief of police all reckoned that there was no sign of a plane crash there.

No wings, no tail section, just some bits of debris,... and as the local mayor and coroner/forensicist said, no body parts.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

That's the Mayor of Shanksville you fool

Of course it the Mayor or Shanksville.... a small town Mayor mumbling.....did you think he was some kind of aviation crash investigation expert???

He was also the coroner and forensicist.

Are you a doctor?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

We can all see from the photo that there APPEARS to be no plane, but the hundreds of people who worked on the case say differently.

It's like the people at WTC7 hearing cracking and "explosions"....which were basically the building breaking down in places, structurally.

Are you trying to debunk what the firemen and other first responders at WTC said?

You weren't there ya dozy backyard mechanic.

Go back to yer Popular Mechanics and bore yerself to death, tw*t.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

That's the Mayor of Shanksville you fool

Of course it the Mayor or Shanksville.... a small town Mayor mumbling.....did you think he was some kind of aviation crash investigation expert???

He was also the coroner and forensicist.

Are you a doctor?

Really, I don't know why I bother trying to discuss anything with intellectually challenged Parrots, but it's wet and soggy outside, so I suppose it's better than watching TV......

On Albert's latest "evidence" concerning the Mayor of Shanksville and statement about there being "no plane".....

When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless:

"My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."
Source Der Speigel

"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."

These two statements were made by the same Mayor of Shanksville that you claim as a star witness. Typical of how the nutjob sites select out little bits and pieces to support their case....but always neglect to publish any of the follow up, retractions, or explanations as to what was meant by such a statement as "no plane"......

So now what? back to cut beams. faked Pentagon photos, or holographic planes????

Originally Posted by koman

"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else.

No that's not correct.

Could it be that the "very light debris including paper and nylon" were blown by the wind? Or perhaps even picked up by birds and later dropped? Just a thought.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

That's the Mayor of Shanksville you fool

Of course it the Mayor or Shanksville.... a small town Mayor mumbling.....did you think he was some kind of aviation crash investigation expert???

He was also the coroner and forensicist.

Are you a doctor?

When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless:
"My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."
Source Der Speigel

"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."

So?

The mayor said there wasn't much there on site to suggest it was a plane crash.

Now, explain why one of the plane's recorders (presumably the cockpit voice recorder) was found buried twenty odd feet below ground, several feet below one of the plane's engines.

Then, please explain how the other one of the plane's engines ended up miles away from the crash site......and why there were two separate debris fields, also miles apart from each other.......if you can.

Here's the map again showing the locations of the crash site, the two other separate debris fields and where one engine was found.



How did all that come about if the plane allegedly did this?

Originally Posted by Neverna

Could it be that the "very light debris including paper and nylon" were blown by the wind? Or perhaps even picked up by birds and later dropped? Just a thought.

No.....try again.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Could it be that the "very light debris including paper and nylon" were blown by the wind? Or perhaps even picked up by birds and later dropped? Just a thought.

Please don't bring logic into this argument, it makes their little heads spin.

Originally Posted by koman

"My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes." Source Der Speigel

Could he have been coerced into "clarifying" what he meant by saying there was "no airplane" there?

Originally Posted by ENT

So?
The mayor said there wasn't much there on site to suggest it was a plane crash.

Now, explain why one of the plane's recorders (presumably the cockpit voice recorder) was found buried twenty odd feet below ground, several feet below one of the plane's engines.

Then, please explain how the other one of the plane's engines ended up miles away from the crash site......and why there were two separate debris fields, also miles apart from each other.......if you can.

Standard conspiracy comeback bullshit. Spilt hairs; then split the hairs that have already have been spilt...and then continue splitting the split hairs ........

When you get your own star witness clarifying a statement and explaining what he actually meant by a clearly misunderstood statement.....just ignore that because it does not fit the nutjob agenda.

Then ask me to "explain" all kinds of things, like why a part of an engine was buried in the crater while another was over in the woods. How the fuck would I know exactly how things like that happened in the midst of a catastrophic high speed crash and massive explosion..is there some precise way that aircraft engines are supposed to behave in such circumstances....? Planes do not (have not) crashed this way as a rule, so there is no pat one line answer to such a question.

I could probably write 20 pages of stories about strange and unexplained things have occurred in crashes, storms and explosions.....but what good would that do?

In the meantime you can't explain anything, but instead just keep banging away with nonsense that has already been explained to the point of tedium.....and so it goes on and on.....

There was a full inquest into this crash...with masses of forensic evidence, photos of debris all over the place, and testimony from witnesses of all kinds.... but instead of any of that stuff you just continue to bombard the thread with nonsense spouted by nutjob websites and treating us to frivolous video clips assembled by fucking idiots, who never have to be accountable to anybody, or offer any credible evidence on anything....which is why no court or responsible body would give them a minute of their time.

There is lots of good solid material to counter any of the bullshit posted on here by 9/11 nutjobs.....but its detailed and lengthy......way beyond the attention span of Parrots....

Originally Posted by ENT

Then, please explain how the other one of the plane's engines ended up miles away from the crash site

In post #4906 the video shows one engine was found at the alleged crash site and could easily fit in the bucket of a JCB. The other engine was found 600m away in a pond, or in some woods. The exact location has never been disclosed, or any photos taken.

I swear if there was a video of this plane crashing and bits flying everywhere, ENT wouldn't be talking about it, but would have a document from some Moscow website who've leaked a fictional "Russian data dump" saying that the person who filmed it was a Saudi Arabian CIA agent who had remote controlled the plane into the ground.

You can't win with these weirdos, it's like nailing jelly to a wall or herding cats.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You can't win with these weirdos, it's like nailing jelly to a wall or herding cats.

True, and well-described. I tried logic in the "9/11...what really happened ?" thread......THREE years ago. I soon learned that ENT's mind flaps freely in the breeze and that he uses circular reasoning, but if that doesn't seem to be working, uses put-downs or whatever else comes to hand.....anything but logical reasoning.

Nowadays, Albert is either trolling or dumber than I thought...he has actually never analyzed anything...just refuted good logic by making trollish remarks, or posting photos.

Neither one of them has a sense of proportion.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You can't win with these weirdos, it's like nailing jelly to a wall or herding cats.

True, and well-described. I tried logic in the "9/11...what really happened ?" thread......THREE years ago. I soon learned that ENT's mind flaps freely in the breeze and that he uses circular reasoning, but if that doesn't seem to be working, uses put-downs or whatever else comes to hand.....anything but logical reasoning.

Nowadays, Albert is either trolling or dumber than I thought...he has actually never analyzed anything...just refuted good logic by making trollish remarks, or posting photos.

Neither one of them has a sense of proportion.

"a sense of proportion"?

I think the phrase you are looking for is "a fucking clue".

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

In post #4906 the video shows one engine was found at the alleged crash site and could easily fit in the bucket of a JCB

The bit being dug up by the backhoe is not an engine....it's only a part of an engine. The engines were almost completely destroyed by the impact, explosion and fire....just like everything else. The human remains amounted to about 275 kgs of meat divided into 1500+ pieces. The largest piece of the plane found was a sheet of aluminium fuselage skin about the size of a door.

Conspiracy nuts just ignore everything except the fabricated bollocks from the conspiracy industry.....and it is an industry that thrives on nit-picking, confusion and lies....all to populate websites and sell books written by professionals who make a good living out of fantasy and exploiting idiots who think every official body in the world is out to get them....

BTW, wasn't it a pretty lucky chance that somebody was filming the plane(s) crashing into the towers?

And how come that the footage had arrived so fast into TV studio(s)?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

BTW, wasn't it a pretty lucky chance that somebody was filming the plane(s) crashing into the towers?

And how come that the footage had arrived so fast into TV studio(s)?

The first plant was barely noticed until it hit the tower. Only caught on one video maybe two...in a city full of people and right in the heart of the business district at eight in the morning.

The second plane was captured on dozens of videos because half the cameras in NYC would have already been pointing at the towers after the first strike. It was actually seen on live TV because the news media crews were already onto the story.

Where do you people come up this kind of horseshit?

Actually there was French Canadian film crew filming a documentary on 2 brothers who were fire firefighters out of the same station. It turned out one was in one of the towers very quickly shortly after it was hit with his crew while the other was at the station doing some side videos and interviews when the first plane fly directly over head and then they responded shortly thereafter once the had been officially dispatched..

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You can't win with these weirdos, it's like nailing jelly to a wall or herding cats.

True, and well-described. I tried logic in the "9/11...what really happened ?" ..... circular reasoning,..... put-downs or whatever else comes to hand.....anything but logical reasoning.

.... either trolling or dumber than I thought... never analyzed anything...just refuted good logic by making trollish remarks, or posting photos.

Neither one of them has a sense of proportion.

Talking about yourself and your troll mates again Ld?

The reason you tried logic and it didn't work is because you're not used to logic, nor how it works.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Klondyke

BTW, wasn't it a pretty lucky chance that somebody was filming the plane(s) crashing into the towers?

And how come that the footage had arrived so fast into TV studio(s)?

The first plant was barely noticed until it hit the tower. Only caught on one video maybe two...in a city full of people and right in the heart of the business district at eight in the morning.

The second plane was captured on dozens of videos because half the cameras in NYC would have already been pointing at the towers after the first strike. It was actually seen on live TV because the news media crews were already onto the story.

The second plane was seen live on TV was it?

Tell us more, spin-doctor!

If half the cameras in NY city were pointing at the towers at the time, how come only around about a dozen or less videos emerged afterwards?

a) None of the videos of the second strike showed an airliner actually hitting the tower!

Because;
b) The videos of the second "plane strike" are photo-shopped, ALL of them.

Take the time to slow the videos down as you view them, watch the frames and plane profiles mis-match!

See the morphing wing-shapes!

See the flash before impact!

See the wonderful cooky-cutter shape, aluminium wings and all, slicing through solid steel!

Only to be seen on American TV11!!
Good fun!

And of course, your mind can't keep up with your spin, either mate, as in;

"The first plant.."

I like that bit, a real Freudian slip,....

The first plant is exactly what it was koman.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

In post #4906 the video shows one engine was found at the alleged crash site and could easily fit in the bucket of a JCB

The bit being dug up by the backhoe is not an engine....it's only a part of an engine. The engines were almost completely destroyed by the impact, explosion and fire....just like everything else. The human remains amounted to about 275 kgs of meat divided into 1500+ pieces. The largest piece of the plane found was a sheet of aluminium fuselage skin about the size of a door.

So, is that the best explanation you can come up with about the plane's engines?

Take a pill koman, as an apologist, you're superlative, but as a forensicist you're total cr*p!

You obviously duck the question of why the second engine ended up miles away from the crash site, this is after you point out that the plane nose dived upside-down into the ground, thus most likely burying the engines (as demonstrated by the engine part found) now you moan on about it only being part of the engine!!


If everything else was almost completely destroyed, my dear chap, how come some of the most easily destroyed material, 275 kg of recognizable human remains, were found? They miraculously escaped the searing heat and survived, eh?

Along with the hijackers passports and head-bands too?

Pull the other leg mate, it's got bells on.


Good grief! Are you alright chappy?

Originally Posted by ENT

The second plane was seen live on TV was it?
Tell us more, spin-doctor!

OK, I will tell you more, numb-nuts.........I sat watching it happen right in the middle of a breaking news story...while I was eating my Wheaties on the morning of Sept 11, 2001 .....I believe the channel was the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) .....of course you're going to tell us that they must have been in on the conspiracy too.....along with most of the population of the entire continent, apparently..... How do you photoshop a live TV shot ENT?....just curious....


PS When you have to pick up on a minor typo like "plant" knowing perfectly it was supposed to say "plane"....you really are starting to scrape bottom aren't you? ........

Originally Posted by ENT

a) None of the videos of the second strike showed an airliner actually hitting the tower!

I saw the impact of CNN in real time. Were you 12 in 2001? It would account for your acceptance of hair brained theories.