Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by ENT

One day the good ol' US of A is gonna admit that the "19-Arabs-who-couldn't-even-fly-a-Cessna-armed-with-boxcutters" didn't even exist, and that there was no hijacking of any airliners whatsoever on 9/11.

So where did the planes come from that flew into the WTC and who was flying them?

What makes you think that any "planes" flew into the WTC?

Originally Posted by ENT

What makes you think that any "planes" flew into the WTC?

Cuz he was told they did.

And some dodgy YouTube video told you they didn't.

Originally Posted by ENT

What makes you think that any "planes" flew into the WTC?

FFS. Multitudes of video footage from multitudes of angles from multitudes of sources.
They say that the camera doesn't lie but it can be made to, but not so many cameras from so many different sources.

Originally Posted by ENT

What makes you think that any "planes" flew into the WTC?

Err, WHAT???


Who said it was planes? I thought the official story is UFO's? Muslimised Martians.

Seriously, no hijacked commercial airliners flew into the WTC towers, crashed into the Pentagon nor into a field in Ohio on 9/11/2001.

The alleged Pentagon airline crash has been completely debunked by the US government itself, Palisades observatory seismographs show no indication whatsoever of such a crash at the Pentagon, but did pick up signals commensurate with one in Shanksville and two at the WTC.

The problem with all four of those alleged airliner crashes is that absolutely no identifiable plane parts were found to match the four supposedly hijacked airliners. None.

Prove otherwise, give a reference to your assertion, we'd all appreciate it.

Originally Posted by ENT

What makes you think that any "planes" flew into the WTC?

WTC is Pentagon? My apologies for my ignorance.

As for the rest of the waffle, if you really think 'no planes flew into the WTC' - have you sorted your post-dying arrangements yet? You appear to be in the advanced stages of something terminal - neuro-wise.


I'm not referring to what/who's planes. Just your simple, uncomplicated, garden variety 'planes'.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Originally Posted by ENT

What makes you think that any "planes" flew into the WTC?

WTC is Pentagon? My apologies for my ignorance.

As for the rest of the waffle, if you really think 'no planes flew into the WTC' - have you sorted your post-dying arrangements yet? You appear to be in the advanced stages of something terminal - neuro-wise.


I'm not referring to what/who's planes. Just your simple, uncomplicated, garden variety 'planes'.

Yes you are ignorant, read the post slowly with some understanding, I know it's difficult for some Ockers, but try, because no one's talking about "what/who's planes", I'm talking about the ones allegedly flown which didn't in fact fly that day. idiot.

Is all that a bit over your drug addled head?

If you think you have some proof of planes flying into either the WTC towers or the Pentagon as alleged by the media and Dubya Bush, then post it, skippy.

Otherwise go take a jump, OK

Originally Posted by Cujo

Originally Posted by ENT

What makes you think that any "planes" flew into the WTC?

FFS. Multitudes of video footage from multitudes of angles from multitudes of sources.
They say that the camera doesn't lie but it can be made to, but not so many cameras from so many different sources.

Lovely stuff eh?

CNN, BBC, all the news media of the day published lots of SFX photoshopped videos of what looked like planes flying into the twin towers, but not one video shows an airliner crashing into the towers, not one.

All either show doctored videos of a black or dark coloured plane morphing cleanly into one tower, the South tower, or one of a white/light coloured plane, much smaller than an AA airliner morphing into the North tower, both impossibilities as plastic planes can't puncture steel buildings, or several lovely well set up camera angles of a dark airplane, not a commercial airliner passing out of view behind the tower as it exploded.

And no plane parts found that matched the supposed hijacked airliners.

Even that bit of wing found wedged between a couple of buildings years later, that a lot of Yanks became almost hysterically religious over, calling it a cultural artefact, iconic even, didn't match.

But how did it get there unless it was planted?

You have stopped taking the tablets again, haven't you, ENT ?

Was the film, confiscated off the dancing Israelis, of the planes(?) hitting the towers ever shown?

Another 9/11 myth. The film is on utube.

Anyone photographing the twin towers coming down that day could be accused of setting up cameras to film the event.

The real set ups were the carefully edited shots of fake planes broadcast by CNN/

Another was the shot of the first aircraft strike on the North Tower, , where the cameraman just happened to be set up with camera facing the right direction and by sheer coincidence (really?) caught the aircraft crashing into the tower facade.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

You have stopped taking the tablets again, haven't you, ENT ?

Explain the so far unidentified wing section found dumped between the two buildings in NY.

There are also many privately shot videos of the planes hitting the towers that clearly show full size airliners flying into the buildings.
(not to mention the pesky little issue of thousands of actual eyewitnesses)

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

You have stopped taking the tablets again, haven't you, ENT ?

Explain the so far unidentified wing section found dumped between the two buildings in NY.

Never heard of such a thing. You're not thinking of the landing gear are you?

Originally Posted by Cujo

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

You have stopped taking the tablets again, haven't you, ENT ?

Explain the so far unidentified wing section found dumped between the two buildings in NY.

Never heard of such a thing. You're not thinking of the landing gear are you?

Yup, that's the one. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Cujo

There are also many privately shot videos of the planes hitting the towers that clearly show full size airliners flying into the buildings.
(not to mention the pesky little issue of thousands of actual eyewitnesses)

The eye witnesses didn't describe any recognizable airliners crashing into the buildings.
Several say that it was a black military plane with no windows that hit the South tower.

Not a single untouched video exists of any airliner impacting against the south side of the South tower.

Videos purporting to show an airliner actually hitting the South tower have been so badly photoshopped that the idiots doing the job made the photoshopped airliner change shape several times, losing then re-gaining bits of wings as it approached the tower to meet up with a 'cooky-cutter' impact profile on the building facade. No bits of disintegrating plane wreckage peeling back off the wings and fuselage, no tail fin falling off, and above all, no deceleration on impact and after of the plastic and aluminium bodied plane, as it appears to enter the steel girder rimmed tower.

Also, there's no way that the light, carbon fibre re-enforced, plastic and aluminium skinned wings could have just sliced through the steel girders forming the outer ring of the tower, and the momentum of the mass of aircraft would have decreased dramatically upon impact and again, the plastic plane could never have cut through the core columns of the tower and then emerge, without losing any speed at all, out the other side of the tower.

Two CNN videos even show what appears to be the undamaged plastic nose section bursting out of the South tower as the tower explodes!

That is Hollywood SFX gone OTT, but perfectly acceptable as realistic to a gullible audience of movie addicted Americans.

Originally Posted by ENT

there's no way that the light, carbon fibre re-enforced, plastic and aluminium skinned wings could have just sliced through the steel girders forming the outer ring of the tower, and the momentum of the mass of aircraft would have decreased dramatically upon impact and again, the plastic plane could never have cut through the core columns of the tower and then emerge, without losing any speed at all, out the other side of the tower.

Two CNN videos even show what appears to be the undamaged plastic nose section bursting out of the South tower as the tower explodes!

Once again you fail to understand the basic physics of crashes.

Besides which, aircraft- grade aluminum is an alloy, extremely strong, and rivals steel.

Clod.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by ENT

there's no way that the light, carbon fibre re-enforced, plastic and aluminium skinned wings could have just sliced through the steel girders forming the outer ring of the tower, and the momentum of the mass of aircraft would have decreased dramatically upon impact and again, the plastic plane could never have cut through the core columns of the tower and then emerge, without losing any speed at all, out the other side of the tower.

Two CNN videos even show what appears to be the undamaged plastic nose section bursting out of the South tower as the tower explodes!

Once again you fail to understand the basic physics of crashes.

Besides which, aircraft- grade aluminum is an alloy, extremely strong, and rivals steel.

Hell, do you ever spout some garbage when yodelling on about physics!

Did you get that out of "Popular Mechanics" or your twelfth grade physics?

WTC outer steel cladding yield strength was 36,000 psi, inner core columns - 150,000 psi, and ultimate strengths ranging from 50,000 - 200,000 psi.

Aluminum yield strength is 15,000 - 70,000 psi, and ultimate strengths ranging from 30,000 - 90,000 psi.

So, steel is stronger than aircraft grade aluminum or any aluminium for that matter, which is 1/2 as strong, at best but 1/3 as heavy as steel.

Bear in mind that the aircraft grade aluminium skin was only a couple of times thicker than that of a coke can, and had very little structural strength so had to be supported on an airframe of carbon fibre and further aluminium, which flexes on impact, buckling the plastic cladding which of course shatters and crumples on impact with a denser object such as a steel framed concrete building.

Steel in WTC construction
"The WTC structural plans specified steels that began at a minimum yield strength FY = 36 ksi and increased from FY = 40 ksi to FY = 85 ksi in 5 ksi (34.5 MPa) increments. Corner elements in the exterior wall often used FY = 100 ksi steels. Contemporaneous construction documents indicate that the lowest strength exterior wall column steels were supplied to the ASTM A 36 standard, but all the steels with strengths above that value conformed to proprietary grades that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the building owner, authorized. Yawata Iron and Steel, now Nippon Steel, supplied most of the steel plate for the exterior wall columns. The plate that faced the interior of the building usually came from a domestic mill, however."
The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Towers Collapse

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Once again you fail to understand the basic physics of crashes.

Besides which, aircraft- grade aluminum is an alloy, extremely strong, and rivals steel.

Clod.

You're trying to use common sense and logic with a guy who maintained unmarked scout vehicles and dogs in order to intercept undesirables who he tracked/triangulated with his phone - think about that, his whole security operation relied on said 'undesirables' phoning him ahead of time because that's what undesirables do - and in this thread has reconstituted aircraft to being made out of plastic.

That's the kind of mentality you're dealing with. Basically, a waste of time.

^ Indeed.

Originally Posted by ENT

Bear in mind

Bear in mind that when a hand hits a brick in a karate demo, the hand, although softer than the brick, is traveling very fast.



What you expeck, Cookie-boy ? Plane to bounce off ?? Sheesh !

Originally Posted by ENT

CNN, BBC, all the news media of the day published lots of SFX photoshopped videos of what looked like planes flying into the twin towers, but not one video shows an airliner crashing into the towers, not one.

All either show doctored videos of a black or dark coloured plane morphing cleanly into one tower, the South tower, or one of a white/light coloured plane, much smaller than an AA airliner morphing into the North tower, both impossibilities as plastic planes can't puncture steel buildings, or several lovely well set up camera angles of a dark airplane, not a commercial airliner passing out of view behind the tower as it exploded.

Wtf is happening in Thailand? Used to be the expats there were just stupid. Now many seem to have become batshit crazy.

I watched the fuckin thing fly into the second tower, live.

Disconcerting. The thing is you someties have valid points on other issues, but talking such utter nonsense your other points are devalued.

Get a fuckin grip.

So are you claiming to have been in New York at the time and just happened to be looking up as an airliner flew into the North tower at WTC?