9/11 was an inside job

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

Cherry picking is what you're suggesting

I'm suggesting looking at all possibilities, examining them, applying logic and reason, and coming to a conclusion.

You keep using terms like "cheery picking" but it's obvious you don't know what they mean and/or apply them incorrectly. Looking at one vdo and deciding it's conclusive proof of something is the cherry picking.

Once again you accuse others of what it is that you yourself do.

I've offered plenty of choice, several videos and points of view, other than the non-evidential stuff you've been regurgitating across the board.

Cherry picking at the available evidence is your domain, as evidenced in the last two pages or so.

**AntRobertson** · 11-03-2016, 01:48 PM

Once again you're accusing me of exactly what it is you do.

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The messages in question were sent TO the aircraft...

As such they'd keep sending even after the aircraft was down, until a timeout or a response.

Let's be clear: No ACARS messages were received from the aircraft after the time they crashed.

What, for 20 minutes after the alleged crash?

**Pragmatic** · 11-03-2016, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Is that clip time-stamped? Maybe it was prior to UA175 hitting the tower?

Sorry I did miss your reply. As to the 'time stamp' it shows on the screen as being a 'live' broadcast.

**Dapper** · 11-03-2016, 01:57 PM

Propaganda Can’t Melt Steel Beams

Eleven years ago, I initiated a discussion about the fact that jet fuel fires could not have melted steel at the World Trade Center. The government agency investigating the WTC destruction responded by holding “some of its deliberations in secret.” Although it’s not a secret that jet fuel can’t melt steel, due to propaganda from sources like The Washington Post and The Huffington Post, Americans often get confused about what facts like that mean to any national discussion. In a nutshell, what it means is that the molten metal found at the WTC, for which there is a great deal of evidence, cannot be explained by the official 9/11 myth.

Today no one thinks that jet fuel fires can melt steel beams—not even The Posts’ new science champion, who doesn’t bother to actually use jet fuel or steel beams to teach us about “retarded metallurgical things.” Instead, he uses a thin metal rod and a blacksmith forge to imply that, if the WTC buildings were made of thin metal rods and there were lots of blacksmith forges there, the thin metal rods would have lost strength and this would be the result. If you buy that as an explanation for what happened at the WTC, you might agree that everyone should just stop questioning 9/11.

This absurd demonstration highlights at least two major problems with America’s ongoing struggle to understand 9/11. The first is that there was a great deal of molten metal at the WTC. Those who know that fact sometimes share internet memes that say “Jet Fuel Can’t Melt Steel Beams” when they want to convey that “Thermite Melted Steel at the WTC.” The second major problem is that certain mainstream media sources continue to put a lot of energy into dis-informing the public about 9/11.

Sources like The Posts, The New York Times and some “alternative media” continue to work hard to support the official myth of 9/11. That effort is not easy because they must do so while providing as little actual information about 9/11 as possible. The dumbing down of the average citizen is a full time job for such propagandists. Luckily for them, American students receive almost no historical context that encourages them to think critically or consider ideas that conflict with blind allegiance to their government. When it comes to the WTC, it also helps that almost 80% of Americans are scientifically illiterate.

As media companies attempt to confuse the public about 9/11, they must avoid relating details that might actually get citizens interested in the subject. For example, it’s imperative that they never mention any of these fourteen facts about 9/11. It is also important to never reference certain people, like the ordnance distribution expert (and Iran-Contra suspect) who managed security at the WTC or the tortured top al Qaeda leader who turned out to have nothing to do with al Qaeda. In fact, to support the official myth of 9/11 these days, media must ignore almost every aspect of the crimes while promoting only the most mindless nonsense they can find. Unfortunately, that bewildering strategy becomes more obvious every day.

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 01:57 PM

^^^^ Go away troll.

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

This video confirms United Airlines flight 175 was still flying after it allegedly flew into the tower.

No it doesn't. Not unless that's what you want it to confirm.

There are plenty of other explanations.

And they are?

Neither Aunty nor anyone else has a reasonable explanation other than that 9/11 was an inside job.

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 03:08 PM

Again....

**Cujo** · 11-03-2016, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Cujo

Originally Posted by ENT

No planes got hijacked on 9/11,.....no proof whatsoever exists to support such a ridiculous theory.

You, though, are deluded enough to keep believing the official line, 14 years after.

So where did the planes that flew into the towers come from?

Who says they were planes?

Many MANY cameras, at least for the second one.

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 03:54 PM

All the camera videos of the twin towers strike and collapse demolition were co-ordinated and photoshopped material.

Aeronautical craft,.....yes.

'Planes,....no.

**harrybarracuda** · 11-03-2016, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The messages in question were sent TO the aircraft, not from it you fucking chimp.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages

Okay Harry.

Why are you attributing other peoples' incorrect opinions to me?

Are you getting that desperate?

**Cujo** · 11-03-2016, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

All the camera videos of the twin towers strike and collapse demolition were co-ordinated and photoshopped material.

Aeronautical craft,.....yes.

'Planes,....no.

You are one crazy nutjob.

**harrybarracuda** · 11-03-2016, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The messages in question were sent TO the aircraft...

As such they'd keep sending even after the aircraft was down, until a timeout or a response.

Let's be clear: No ACARS messages were received from the aircraft after the time they crashed.

What, for 20 minutes after the alleged crash?

Why wouldn't they?

The planes were expected to be in the air for hours you fucking moron.

They're weren't scheduled to fly into the Trade Center you know, despite what the voices in your head tell you.

**harrybarracuda** · 11-03-2016, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

All the camera videos of the twin towers strike and collapse demolition were co-ordinated and photoshopped material.

Aeronautical craft,.....yes.

'Planes,....no.

Ah yes, carefully co-ordinated, altered-in-real-time video feeds of a plane flying into a building.

Do you actually realise how stupid a c u n t you sound?

Here are 30 different camera angles.

You idiot.

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 04:23 PM

Do you think that the projectile video'd going at seemingly undiminished speed after impact with the South tower, was a Boeing 767-600 airliner's nose cone or engin. (1 of)?

**Cujo** · 11-03-2016, 04:23 PM

Here's something for you ENT.

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The messages in question were sent TO the aircraft...

As such they'd keep sending even after the aircraft was down, until a timeout or a response.

Let's be clear: No ACARS messages were received from the aircraft after the time they crashed.

What, for 20 minutes after the alleged crash?

Why wouldn't they?

The planes were expected to be in the air for hours you fucking moron.

They're weren't scheduled to fly into the Trade Center you know, despite what the voices in your head tell you.

D'ya mean no report expected?

**harrybarracuda** · 11-03-2016, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The messages in question were sent TO the aircraft...

As such they'd keep sending even after the aircraft was down, until a timeout or a response.

Let's be clear: No ACARS messages were received from the aircraft after the time they crashed.

What, for 20 minutes after the alleged crash?

Why wouldn't they?

The planes were expected to be in the air for hours you fucking moron.

They're weren't scheduled to fly into the Trade Center you know, despite what the voices in your head tell you.

D'ya mean no report expected?

What?

**Latindancer** · 11-03-2016, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Once again you're accusing me of exactly what it is you do.

ENT does this a lot.

He also uses circular reasoning.

He'll give you a guided tour of his mind if you like, but you may not survive....you'll likely get hit by flapping things.

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 05:37 PM

You're not good at understanding others, are you, Ld?

**Latindancer** · 11-03-2016, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

( speaking to ENT) : Once again you're accusing me of exactly what it is you do.

.............QED..............

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 06:25 PM

Your above supplication is ignored...

(Message from god...., 2 U....Ld)

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by ENT

All the camera videos of the twin towers strike and collapse demolition were co-ordinated and photoshopped material.

Aeronautical craft,.....yes.

'Planes,....no.

Ah yes, carefully co-ordinated, altered-in-real-time video feeds of a plane flying into a building.

Do you actually realise how stupid a c u n t you sound?

Here are 30 different camera angles.

You idiot.

And not one airplane filmed strikes and enters the building in any credible way, if at all!!!

**harrybarracuda** · 11-03-2016, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

And not one airplane filmed strikes and enters the building in any credible way, if at all!!!

Your psychosis is complete, isn't it?

**ENT** · 11-03-2016, 08:51 PM

Tell me at which point in that video is an airliner shown actually hitting a tower, other than the phony "cookie-cutter" effect footage of purported airliners merging faultlessly into the tower sides.

View Poll Results: Was 9/11 an inside job - 2016 TD poll

Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions