Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Those questions - and more - have been answered repeatedly in this thread. You just have no interest in any answers that don't fit your narrative. It's called confirmation bias.

Come on Ant, you can't expect me to trawl through 280 odd pages.
Could you please just supply some links at least to answer the questions.

will the deniers feel shame when all is revealed in 50 years and they were proved wrong ? that it was indeed a conspiracy ?

see how the US election with Russian hacking is full of the same conspiracies, and the same deniers here believe in that shit

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

Come on Ant, you can't expect me to trawl through 280 odd pages.
Could you please just supply some links at least to answer the questions.

Come off it Albert...we know its you.

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

How could so many passengers make mobile phone calls? Impossible at that height and speed.

Well its proven they can and have for starters, and the lower you go the more likely it is the call will not drop. This one is so easy to debunk its ridiculous

Not to mention a little thing called airplane phones

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Those questions - and more - have been answered repeatedly in this thread. You just have no interest in any answers that don't fit your narrative. It's called confirmation bias.

Come on Ant, you can't expect me to trawl through 280 odd pages.
Could you please just supply some links at least to answer the questions.

So you expect me to do it for you??

Yeah, good fucking luck with that.

Originally Posted by redhaze

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

How could so many passengers make mobile phone calls? Impossible at that height and speed.

Well its proven they can and have for starters, and the lower you go the more likely it is the call will not drop. This one is so easy to debunk its ridiculous

Not to mention a little thing called airplane phones

Conclusion
Whereas the first official account of the allegedly hijacked planes rested heavily on reported cell phone accounts by passengers and flight attendants, the second official account – which was implicit in The 9/11 Commission Report and became explicit in the FBI’s report to the 2006 Moussaoui trial – claimed that all of the phone calls that had been reported in the press as cell phone calls, except the 9:58 AM calls by Edward Felt and CeeCee Lyles, were actually made from onboard phones.

This second official account, if we ignore the problems in the Felt and Lyle accounts, removed the main problem of the first official account, which claimed that cell phone calls were made at high altitudes. But this solution created new problems.

By denying the truth of much of the first account, which had been provided or at least allowed by the authorities, the second account raises a question about its own credibility: Why should the new account by the authorities be trusted?

The idea that all seven of the reported cell phone calls, aside from those by Felt and Lyles, were due to errors is implausible.

Moreover, two of the reported cell phone calls cannot be explained away, because the 25,000′ altitude call to Julie Sweeney was recorded on her answering machine and the calls to Deena Burnett were shown by her Caller ID to have been received from her husband’s cell phone when his plane was above 35,000 feet.

Therefore, the second official account is contradicted by inconvenient evidence: that two of the reported CELL phone calls were received when the plane was far too high to sustain such calls.

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Well this is the conspiracy nutters thread... it's the NSA, watching him because their cover up is being leaked

Come on Ant-answer the questions:
How could the single propeller, very amateur trainees fly jets with such finesse?
How could the towers collapse just as in a demolition? Towers on fire tend to break up over time, not go staaaaaaaight down.
How could so many passengers make mobile phone calls? Impossible at that height and speed.
This is a time for Johnny Nash and i'll try to centralize the video though my heart is on the left

.

He didn't answer.

*Crickets chirping*

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Those questions - and more - have been answered repeatedly in this thread. You just have no interest in any answers that don't fit your narrative. It's called confirmation bias.

Come on Ant, you can't expect me to trawl through 280 odd pages.
Could you please just supply some links at least to answer the questions.

So you expect me to do it for you??

Yeah, good fucking luck with that.

Well you claim the questions have all been answered repeatedly. Surely you can remember a post or two? Never mind, perhaps redhaze will reappear, and his mood sounds better.
Time for another John.

You just have no interest in any answers that don't fit your narrative. It's called confirmation bias.

it doesn't matter how many times the questions have been asked and answered,

deniers are deniers, it's a state of mind, a stubbornness to secure yourself

look at the Holocaust deniers, they will question historical film footage as being staged and doctored,

same here, they can't even think this is possible

it will take 50 years and possibly more for the deniers to see the light

A truly prescient song -don't be deniers if you listen carefully

Ahh... so it's not only facts and logic that you twist and distort in order to make them match your preordained conclusions.

One problem is that is consistent with truthers is indeed the problem of confirmation bias, or really just blatant cherry picking. A common theme is for them to take the tiniest nothing fragment of anything, be it a small inconsistency in some report or whatever, blow it up in an attempt to convince others/yourself that it "proves" your entire case, ignore/dismiss all the other pieces of evidence that clearly show you aren't right (with common sense always being ignored, btw).

Rinse, repeat.

Originally Posted by redhaze

One problem is that is consistent with truthers is indeed the problem of confirmation bias, or really just blatant cherry picking. A common theme is for them to take the tiniest nothing fragment of anything, be it a small inconsistency in some report or whatever, blow it up in an attempt to convince others/yourself that it "proves" your entire case, ignore/dismiss all the other pieces of evidence that clearly show you aren't right (with common sense always being ignored, btw).

Rinse, repeat.

waffle waffle- come on gentlemen, details.
How did those Saudis fly the jets? And they're not even dead after 'flying' into the towers!
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...st/1559151.stm

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...st/1559151.stm

ERROR

The requested URL could not be retrieved

But were the 'hijackers' actually recruited by the CIA and then 'disappeared'?

So basically what you're saying is that the government disappeared and then killed all the passengers on the planes, but then used pictures of live men and claimed they were the terrorists, but then never bothered to tie up those loose ends and just let them wander the streets alive and well.

Don't you see how pathetically laughable your entire "theory" is? Every part of it has a logic hole you could drive Peter North's dick through.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...st/1559151.stm

ERROR

The requested URL could not be retrieved

Correct is"
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

Yeah this stuff is not proof of a 9/11 conspiracy. It is actually logical evidence against a conspiracy. And it really doesn't take much thought to see why.

Originally Posted by redhaze

So basically what you're saying is that the government disappeared and then killed all the passengers on the planes, but then used pictures of live men and claimed they were the terrorists, but then never bothered to tie up those loose ends and just let them wander the streets alive and well.

This is why I don't think the US govt performed an inside job.

It would have been too complicated, with way tooo many people involved, and some of which would talk.

That said, I do not believe the official government's version on many points. I've noted many of these points in the thread.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

This is why I don't think the US govt performed an inside job.

They used the Israeli 'Mossad'.

Originally Posted by redhaze

A common theme is for them to take the tiniest nothing fragment of anything, be it a small inconsistency in some report or whatever, blow it up in an attempt to convince others/yourself that it "proves" your entire case,

No, inconsistencies don't prove the case, they prove the reports are unreliable, and thus should not to be taken for granted.

Mossad was definitely involved, Pentagon and CIA on their own couldn't pull such a stunt, too incompetent

Originally Posted by Maanaam

No, inconsistencies don't prove the case, they prove the reports are unreliable, and thus should not to be taken for granted.

I agree with that. Clearly there were many mistakes made at numerous levels of the government, both before the attacks and afterwards during the investigations. Particularly in some of the earlier reporting (all of which should have been expected).