Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by ENT

Explain that, Humbert. You seem to think that you know something

First explain to us why you think its important.

Originally Posted by koman

A lengthy and completely meaningless diatribe using a bit of excess vocabulary in a futile attempt to seem credible......

Bottom line. Forensic science does not always provide the answers with complete certainty, however good the scientists or the environment in which they work. That's the way it IS.

Limited experience--3 degrees including a Phd + 40 years of experience .

Bullshit koman.

A Phd in what?

It still doesn't make him a forensicist.

Bottom line.
As I outlined above, it takes effort, in a lab, not a Phd to get the answers in a search, so stop trying to big yourself and your brother up.

Go back to your dream world konan, and stop watching CSI or other such crap on TV.

Originally Posted by Your name here

Conveniently ignoring the two 3300kg Roll Royce engines attached to these hollow aluminum wings I see.

If the facts get in the way of your opinion, just ignore them. I'm guessing you're not a retired scientist.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by Latindancer

In terms of physics, it's similar, and almost the miniature equivalent of Albert's hole in Pentagon photo. Same principles at work.

Your hole was made, I assume, by a projectile that was round in shape, the same as a bullet? Or a may be a cruise missile? Whereas the hole in Alberts picture is supposed to depict a projectile with a wing span of nearly 60m have crashed in to it. There's a big difference.

Yes, hollow aluminum wings dangling on the outer edges of an airplane that have virtually no resistance to an impact such as this, simply mind boggling the ignorance displayed by the skeptics in this thread..

Nobody's conveniently ignoring anything (except maybe you) but you just came into 230 plus pages of thread so you probably don't realize how many times that's been explained so I'm afraid you'll have to do some review to get your answer.

Should have said "206" but I can't edit and couldn't check before I posted it as I might have lost my post.

^Nothing but piss and wind agian.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

simply mind boggling the ignorance displayed by the septics in this thread..

Quite

Clever, especially since I mostly Brits and Aussies posting on both sides. Nice editing of a post though............................. NOT!

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Clever, especially since I mostly Brits and Aussies posting on both sides

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

the first steel frame high rise in history to collapse solely from fire

There you go again...same tired old myths. Fire was not the proximate cause of the collapse.....how many times do you fuckwits have to be told that? This is what comes from having a one track mind....

Now, why don't you post those excellent videos of your man of the century and personal hero.....Noam Chomsky, writing off the 9/11 theories as total bullshit spouted by insecure, paranoid people who go though life believing that all official bodies are out to get them......

I mean if Chomsky was not convinced it was the government or the CIA, I can't imagine what kind of loon would....

This is the same guy who teaches the great unwashed that the US is the worlds greatest terrorist state and that all things connected with western civilization, or capitalism is responsible for everything that can possibly go wrong in the world..... BUT he still says the 9/11 conspiracy is bollocks.

He explains why it's bollocks rather well, and most of what he says has been stated and repeated on these threads many times....my myself and a few others.
.

^More piss and wind

Bin Laden's initial reaction to 9/11 was not to take credit for the crime at all. In fact, he continually denied any involvement in 9/11 up until the 'confession' video was mysteriously presented. Almost no one in the U.S. has read Bin Laden's first statement in response to 9/11, which so conflicts the later 'confession'. Here it is, from September 17, 2001:

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."

We've been asked to accept without question his other statements of 'confession'. So how do we make sense of the above statement? Or how do we make sense of his second public statement in regards to 9/11, given on October 16, 2001:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

These comments obviously do not prove that Bin Laden did not orchestrate 9/11. But they do raise a crucial question. Why would a man spend six weeks denying a crime, then suddenly flip-flop 180 degrees and happily start taking responsibility for the originally denied crime? Most people - including scientists, CIA analysts, FBI, and other independent investigators, etc. - who have a working familiarity with the 'confession' video, know the answer to this question. And that is that the man in the video making the 'confession' is almost certainly not Osama Bin Laden, and the tape is a fake. The man shown in the video, though bearded, Arabic, and of darkish complexion, is much heavier than all known photos and videos of the actual Bin Laden. The man in the video is seen writing something down with his right hand. Bin Laden is well-known to be left-handed. And there are scores of other reasons to question the validity of the tape. In fact, "the FBI's page on bin Laden as a 'Most Wanted Terrorist' does not list him as wanted for 9/11, and when asked why, a FBI spokesman said, 'because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11'."


Oh look...it's not fucking him.

Originally Posted by ENT

As I outlined above, it takes effort, in a lab, not a Phd to get the answers in a search

And who works in this lab full of experts. People with Phd's in forensic sciences, or ENT's with access to Wikipedia.....

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

^More piss and wind

Really?.....post the videos you coward. Looper kindly stuck them into your thread about your hero. Why don't YOU explain something for a change.....mmmmm

Originally Posted by koman

Really?.....post the videos you coward.

Listen you little cocksucker - post them yourself

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by koman

Really?.....post the videos you coward.

Listen you little cocksucker - post them yourself

Coward....I don't need videos to discredit your bullshit.... I was just being polite.

How many more times are you going to post when you can't think of anything to say?......

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by ENT

As I outlined above, it takes effort, in a lab, not a Phd to get the answers in a search

.And who works in this lab full of experts. People with Phd's in forensic sciences, or ENT's ....:

Definitely not a bunch of Phds, they're over-qualified and in the wrong field of experience generally,....in the lab, they're all lab technicians, with a BSc minimum, or BA in Anthropology and postgrad in Science or bio-anthropology, students.... and ENT.

Originally Posted by koman

I don't need videos to discredit your bullshit

Maybe you should start with a dictionary - baby steps first and all.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by ENT

As I outlined above, it takes effort, in a lab, not a Phd to get the answers in a search

.And who works in this lab full of experts. People with Phd's in forensic sciences, or ENT's ....:

Definitely not a bunch of Phds, they're over-qualified and in the wrong field of experience generally,....in the lab, they're all lab technicians, with a BSc minimum, or BA in Anthropology and postgrad in Science or bio-anthropology, students.... and ENT.

I understand now. In ENT's world of forensic science, real scientists with real experience and seniority are over-qualified.....that could explain quite a bit......

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by koman

I don't need videos to discredit your bullshit

Maybe you should start with a dictionary - baby steps first and all.

So, no Chomsky 9/11 videos then Albert.......they really do embarrass the shit out of you don't they? Especially when Looper shoved them in you face right after your OP .....that was fucking priceless....

You never did respond to them in any way....did you?....let everybody just babble on about universal grammar and all that other Chomsky shit, but never touch those videos on 9/11 again...they are fucking D.Y.N.O.M.I.T.E. for all you conspiracy nutjobs aren't they? .. ..

So ya reckon ol Noam is a kind of anti government leftist hero do ya?.....

Your words.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

"When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999."

Have you quoted Rumsfeld's answer? Seems to me you are paraphrasing or recalling his testimony without context.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Incredibly, the Commission did not even allude to the existence, nor the absurd collapse, of Building 7.
It would seem logical that the collapse of a massive 47-story building (which is as big as the Bank of America Building in San Francisco), the first steel frame high rise in history to collapse solely from fire, which also housed the offices of important government agencies in downtown Manhattan, would warrant an investigation. Or at least a citation by the government commission assigned to thoroughly investigate the events of 9/11. It would seem logical to think that structural engineers, chefs, and wood-burning stove owners around the world would be interested to know that steel has suddenly become susceptible to fire. It would be logical to think that the tell-tale shock wave, 'squibs', internal box-like implosion, freefall speed, and neat footprint rubble pile clearly pointing to a controlled demolition of Building 7 would interest those investigating its collapse. But the 9/11 Commission Report does not even mention its existence. Nor does NIST, the government agency assigned to investigate the collapse of the Twin Towers. Like the 9/11 Commission, they did not mention its existence, its collapse, nor the bizarre specifics of that collapse - which so contradict official accounts.

This proves nothing. How does this prop up your claim that the US Government blew the building up. Utter BS.

So a little re-cap

1: WTC Towers 1,2 and 7 were brought down by explosives





2: The second plane that hit the twin towers was not a commercial aircraft.





3: No plane crashed at the pentagon




4: No plane crashed in shanksville

What happened to the theory that it was all done with nuclear bombs? I liked that one. Even against the sky-high levels of paranoid insanity which are displayed on pretty much every page of this thread, that managed to stand out as a particularly florid delusion.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

the first steel frame high rise in history to collapse solely from fire

There you go again...same tired old myths. Fire was not the proximate cause of the collapse.....how many times do you fuckwits have to be told that? This is what comes from having a one track mind....

Now, why don't you post those excellent videos of your man of the century and personal hero.....Noam Chomsky, writing off the 9/11 theories as total bullshit spouted by insecure, paranoid people who go though life believing that all official bodies are out to get them......

I mean if Chomsky was not convinced it was the government or the CIA, I can't imagine what kind of loon would....

This is the same guy who teaches the great unwashed that the US is the worlds greatest terrorist state and that all things connected with western civilization, or capitalism is responsible for everything that can possibly go wrong in the world..... BUT he still says the 9/11 conspiracy is bollocks.

He explains why it's bollocks rather well, and most of what he says has been stated and repeated on these threads many times....my myself and a few others.
.

Who says it wasn't fire that caused the collapse, NIST report, thermal expansion due to office fires.
You believe them or you don't.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

So a little re-cap

1: WTC Towers 1,2 and 7 were brought down by explosives





2: The second plane that hit the twin towers was not a commercial aircraft.





3: No plane crashed at the pentagon




4: No plane crashed in shanksville

Obviously these are only the major points.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by ENT

As I outlined above, it takes effort, in a lab, not a Phd to get the answers in a search

.And who works in this lab full of experts. People with Phd's in forensic sciences, or ENT's ....:

Definitely not a bunch of Phds, they're over-qualified and in the wrong field of experience generally,....in the lab, they're all lab technicians, with a BSc minimum, or BA in Anthropology and postgrad in Science or bio-anthropology, students.... and ENT.

I understand now. In ENT's world of forensic science, real scientists with real experience and seniority are over-qualified.....that could explain quite a bit....

You're getting senile koman.

As you can read in my post, real scientists with real degrees populate forensic labs, along with students who do most of the donkey work of sorting and sifting through the material.

What's the value of academic seniority in a world of practical necessities?.... None.

You really are far removed from any kind of lab work,...and university experience.

There's no need for Phds on the job, ....it takes technical skills.......not a thesis.
Most forensic scientists are as I oulined earlier, there are only a very few forensic Phds around, as most forensicists are postgrads in Science preparatory to doing their masters and need a broad range of study in various fields, no as offered in a standard Phd programe.

By the way, what's a real scientist in your world? Someone with a degree and practice in the field or do only your precious (and largely over-valued Phds) qualify as scientists?

Get real.