Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

You're right. It's much more likely that is was a massive conspiracy requiring the involvement and complicity of hundreds - if not thousands - of people from inception to planning to execution, none of whom have so much as spilled the beans about it. Because gawd knows, if anyone can pull of such a complicated plot and subterfuge it's a government - they never fuck anything up.

And they would've gotten away with it to but for internet sluthes and their not at all contradictory explanations and theories.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It's much more likely that is was a massive conspiracy requiring the involvement and complicity of hundreds - if not thousands - of people from inception to planning to execution, none of whom have so much as spilled the beans about it.

you mean like the Hollocaust and nobody would believe it was possible ? yes, thanks for making my point again

people live in denial, happens all the time, and 911 is no exception, just another sad record of mass public denial

No Butters, not like the Holocaust.

Thanks for randomly inserting a non-sequitur and straw-man like that and making my mockery of you nut jobs easier.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

No Butters, not like the Holocaust.

Thanks for randomly inserting a non-sequitur and straw-man like that and making my mockery of you nut jobs easier.

and why not ? because you can't address that obvious question ?

to this day we have people in denial of the Hollocaust and how it happens, do you think they are right too ?

in my book they are no different to the 911 deniers we see here in this thread,

maybe in 50 years when we know why and how it was done, those 911 deniers would look quite foolish

do you really want to be in that group Ant ?

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

No Butters, not like the Holocaust.

Thanks for randomly inserting a non-sequitur and straw-man like that and making my mockery of you nut jobs easier.

and why not ? because you can't address that obvious question ?

to this day we have people in denial of the Hollocaust and how it happens, do you think they are right too ?

in my book they are no different to the 911 deniers we see here in this thread,

maybe in 50 years when we know why and how it was done, those 911 deniers would look quite foolish

do you really want to be in that group Ant ?

Hey Butters, people who deny the Holocaust are also called conspiracy theorists and mocked for it.

That's your team not mine buddy.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Hey Butters, people who deny the Holocaust are also called conspiracy theorists and mocked for it. That's your team not mine buddy.

not so fast, Ant, in 1947 until 1951, they weren't, nobody wanted to talk about it because it "didn't happen", yeah, I know completely foolish

Returning Jews have told of stories where they were being marginalized and told to be quiet about it if they didn't want to look crazy for other people. They stayed quiet and some even denied so they could "integrate" back society.

very nice documentary about it with Hollocaust survivors, I suggest you watch it and report back.

You are being overly naive about the conditions of men and how far in lies they will put themselves to save face.

Yes people are disgusting and 911 deniers will one day regret their stuborn blindness to fell secure in their little bubble world.

Butters,

You're wasting your time. I already told you I'm inured to this sort of dribble.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

You're wasting your time. I already told you I'm inured to this sort of dribble.

and as demonstrated, you are clearly in denial

the good news is that you are not alone,

but one day, you will regret your blindness, no matter how much you wanted to protect yourself from the truth

I mock thy ridiculousness and logic fails with these dancing bananas:

I understand it's your choice not to seek the truth, and blindness is comforting, nothing wrong with that, Religious followers do it all the time

like I said, it's your choice and your right to be in denial, nobody is blaming you for it

but can you say the same in 50 years ?

It's been quite an interesting tinternet convo going on regards why the Pom tower block did not fall and why did that 3rd Seppo building fall.

Trade center 3 wannit ?

The Towers were not involved in the topic but only the 3rd one that fell that had not been hit by anything.

Funny thing though, at the end of the Banter not one person fronted and said I know it was a conspiracy and I was involved or know of it.

Interesting all the same.

UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up
Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

For all intents and purposes a UK court has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the September 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States. Fantastic. A small victory but a huge symbolic victory and one you would have never otherwised have heard of. So I suggest to you the reader to get the word out on this one. Spread it far and wide. This is big if only symbolic.
UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

like I said, it's your choice and your right to be in denial, nobody is blaming you for it

but can you say the same in 50 years ?

He'll be as dead as his putrid head already is.

^^ Good video that... so much conspiracy around 9/11 that it almost seems fake, but the BBC report is 100% genuine right?
I mean can anyone here dispute that?

And anyway, I didn't know that WTC7 collapsed 7 hours later, I thought it was pretty much straight after the twin towers collapsed. How can it collapse after 7 hours? I mean, it looks like it falls into its own footprint, not like a damaged building where part of it would collapse and leave a partial shell. Would some of the posters that would like to call me a tin foil nutter for thinking there's something very unusual about this care to explain how the collapse happened in that way and 7 hours later..?

Originally Posted by Thedogsbollix

It's been quite an interesting tinternet convo going on regards why the Pom tower block did not fall and why did that 3rd Seppo building fall.

Trade center 3 wannit ?

The Towers were not involved in the topic but only the 3rd one that fell that had not been hit by anything.

Funny thing though, at the end of the Banter not one person fronted and said I know it was a conspiracy and I was involved or know of it.

Interesting all the same.

What's that got to do with the slice of fish?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the Saudi trainee pilots with a only few hours training in single engine planes and performances described as mediocre to bad by their instructors, could fly these jets in manoeuvres that only a pilot with 20 years of experience flying jets could perform.
It just ain't on!

Originally Posted by Klondyke

UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up
Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

For all intents and purposes a UK court has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the September 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States. Fantastic. A small victory but a huge symbolic victory and one you would have never otherwised have heard of. So I suggest to you the reader to get the word out on this one. Spread it far and wide. This is big if only symbolic.
UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up

You see, this is exactly what happens in instances such as this: a tangentially relevant bit of information is twisted and distorted to fit a pre-ordained picture.

Because if you look at the actual case and the facts Rooke did not win that case and was simply given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs.

Somehow that is twisted into: "For all intents and purposes a UK court has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the September 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States" and 'Man Wins Case Against BBC'. That's complete horseshit. The court categorically did not rule anything of the sort and, again, he did not win the case.

#Factsmatter.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

like I said, it's your choice and your right to be in denial, nobody is blaming you for it

but can you say the same in 50 years ?

He'll be as dead as his putrid head already is.

Not you though, eh bENT.

You're going to live to 150+ years old!

\

Originally Posted by Neo

^^ Good video that... so much conspiracy around 9/11 that it almost seems fake, but the BBC report is 100% genuine right?
I mean can anyone here dispute that?

And anyway, I didn't know that WTC7 collapsed 7 hours later, I thought it was pretty much straight after the twin towers collapsed. How can it collapse after 7 hours? I mean, it looks like it falls into its own footprint, not like a damaged building where part of it would collapse and leave a partial shell. Would some of the posters that would like to call me a tin foil nutter for thinking there's something very unusual about this care to explain how the collapse happened in that way and 7 hours later..?

Actually that and the pentagon. Something odd but maybe explainable.

Bringing down building 7, 8 hours later with no people in it as some sort of conspiraracy makes zero sense at all. What would be the point?

With no people in it? You mean it doesn't make sense unless people died?
A strange train of thought.

Well what else did it have inside the building?