Printable View
the camera shot was done underneath the plane when it crashed, you couldn't see the airline markings either way
it doesn't matter as we will never know what happen exactly,
anyone who believe the Bush version is as dumb and imbecile as the tin foil hats blaming the crash on Space Aliens
and ? so you working in a call center answering sales calls for UA means you are actually know the truth about those planes ? how stupid can you be ?Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBKK
the beauty with dumb people like you is that they are so scared of their own shadow, they will never put themselves in doubt after they have swallowed all the comforting government lies. You do realize that some people like you would actually believe that Saddam had WMDs ? just ask Boon, he will tell you all about it :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
that was an inside job,
too many coincidences too many benefits of such an event to the bush and family friends gang,
we will know the truth, it will come out,
civil war in the states is near, dollar collapse will be the beginning of the end, people will retaliate, they will ask questions they will hold them responsible and demand answers.
they don't forget,
One thing I will concede is that the government knew the attack was coming and deliberately did nothing to prevent it.
After all, Churchill did it with Pearl Harbour.
Hell, that old bat Rice said as much at the hearings.
Bush & Rice Comment: Who Would Have Thought? Planes Hijacked Crashed Into Buildings? - YouTube
Which is what makes it all the more absurd that some idiots envisage this complicated process of replacing planes in mid-air and disappearing hundreds of people.
Can I suggest you watch the documentary and listen to him describe what was happening at the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTDamned convenient for that cameraman that he was at the right place at the right time eh, w*nker, he had his camera focused on that plane ready to go before the thing flew into sight! Amazing!! :bananaman:Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Close enough for him to see the airliner makings that no one else could see, not even his carefully focussed camera could pick them up eh? :smileylaughing:
Because frankly criticising it without watching it just makes you look an even bigger fucking idiot.
With deliberate air traffic chaos and the Vigilant Guardian military exercise underway (involving attacks with hijacked planes no less), why would you think that they couldn't redirect planes to airports without anyone knowing, round up the crews and passengers for "their safety" into some place and gas them to death (or something similar)? Then their own planes take their place and ram into buildings by remote control (only WTC of course as we all know it was a missile that hit the Pentagon). It's FAR from far-fetched. But no worries HB, in the land of the blind the man with one eye is king. And most Americans and neo-cons seems to be monocular
Put your tin foil hat back on son, and don't forget the drool tray.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
You've already lied to me once saying no-one saw an aircraft hit the pentagon, and I've already provided ample testimony from people who did. You do know it makes you look like a stupid twat, right?
Don't you get tired of spouting laughably debunkable bullshit?
I know ENT doesn't, but that's why everyone thinks he's a c u n t.
:)
Um, no, I was working at the Narita New Tokyo International Airport at the time and had to comfort a lot of stranded crewmembers who had lost friends, family and co-workers in the attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly
I've been trying to understand why some people, in the face of overwhelming evidence, still cling to debunked conspiracy theories and came across this article:
The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind
Charlie Veitch was once one of Britain’s leading conspiracy theorists, a friend of David Icke and Alex Jones and a 9/11 'truther'. But when he had a change of heart, the threats began. He talks to Will Storr.
The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind - Telegraph
overwhelming evidence? been watching that stacey dooley again eh?
(me and pat would like to DP her though)
It's no longer in doubt where Saddams WMD's ended up, just like was predicted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ButterflyYou do realize that some people like you would actually believe that Saddam had WMDs ? just ask Boon, he will tell you all about it :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
Surely not ? Though Iraq and Syria do share a border.
Thanks for the link, Tony. It's a bit too much of a mental stretch for ENT though...too close to the truth :
"Conspiracy theorists, he says, are often “bullied people. People who maybe didn’t get the girls at school… So they see a lot of rugger bugger types and they’re against anything to do with them. They will side with the devil, as long as the devil is against the West.” It’s impossible to avoid the observation that the person he describes resembles his own schoolboy self. And if his conflation of “rugger buggers” and “the West” is telling, so is his current ideological position.
“I’ve gone full circle in my Right-wing thinking,” he says. “There’s a professional victimhood in conspiracy theorists. There’s a hatred of high achievers.” Veitch is now hoping to set up a film production company and to carve out a new career as a documentary maker. As for his own involvement in the conspiracy movement, Veitch has a simpler theory. When asked what it was in his psychology that made him susceptible, he answers emphatically.
“Ego,” he says. “Ego made me vulnerable.”
We already know that Sadam Hussein used nerve gas on the Iranian's in the Iran/Iraq war and on the Kurds, but you seem to think that you know he had more than that, using the term WMD's is a real good bogeyman description innit?:mid:Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaBorn
But how did he get hold of them?
"Though Ronald Reagan is often touted as a conservative hero, many Republicans have a selective memory about his actual record. Reaganites who object to tax increases of any kind, for example, seem to forget that the man himself actually raised taxes 11 times while in office.
The latest politician to misremember Reagan’s record is Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, who invoked the former president Thursday on Fox News concerning the Syria debate.
“We have said as a responsible nation that the use of chemical weapons is prohibited,” Ros-Lehtinen said. ”It is against the norms of international standards and to let something like this go unanswered, I think will weaken our resolve. I know that President Reagan would have never let this happen.”
Except that Ronald Reagan let exactly that happen, repeatedly, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in the 1980s. But there’s more.
“Ronald Reagan didn’t just look the other way when Saddam used chemical weapons–he sold the stuff to Saddam,” said MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell in his Rewrite segment on Thursday. “The President of the United States was Saddam Hussein’s drug dealer.”
O’Donnell cited a 2002 Washington Post article by Michael Dodd that found “the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.”
As is widely reported, Hussein used these chemical weapons against Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war.
After the 1991 Gulf War, U.N. inspectors “compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes” in Iraq."
Ronald Reagan let Saddam buy and use chemical weapons | MSNBC ? Iranian.com
Now let's look at what the term Weapon of Mass Destruction really means, then who's actually using them.
In fact, by its own definition, the U.S. government is using WMDs every day.
There appear to be two relevant laws here. The first is found in Title 18 USC § 2332a, which defines weapons of mass destruction as
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;
So far, so good. Beneath the legalese, this mostly fits the common definition of WMDs. However, Section 921, the part that defines WMDs as destructive devices is where the law gets interesting. For purpose of a WMD, a destructive device is defined as a
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
or, any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter.
Now we have a problem. By this standard, the U.S. military is using WMDs every day, and could be prosecuted by a foreign power if they were to adopt similar laws.
Here are a few examples:
M67 hand grenade: U.S. military’s fragmentation grenade is a grenade under Section 921, and it has an explosive charge of 6.5 ounces, so it qualifies as a WMD on two counts.
TOW-2 anti-tank missile: The TOW-2 is a rocket that blasts through tank armor with a 13-pound warhead, which would qualify as a WMD. Note that a U.S. Army veteran was charged []Army veteran charged after fighting with Syrian rebel group linked to al-Qaeda - Washington Post last month by the FBI with using WMDs after he fired Russian-made rocket-propelled grenades while fighting in Syria alongside the rebels.
M795 artillery shell. The U.S. military’s standard 155-millimeter howitzer shell carries 20 pounds of TNT to its target. This would appear to qualify it as a weapon of mass destruction.
PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary ammunition – These tank-killing rounds for the 30-millimeter cannon on the A-10 Warthog attack jet use depleted uranium (an extremely dense metal) to punch through armor – and releases radiation in the process. The Pentagon has maintained for years that the radiation is too small to be dangerous, but some – including Desert Storm veterans [http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du.htm] have argued otherwise.
5 Weapons of Mass Destruction the U.S. Military Uses Every Day - Forbes
No one lied to ya, ya oversensitive bean counter, no one saw a plane hit the Pentagon. so go argue with US Palisades Observatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaPut your tin foil hat back on son, and don't forget the drool tray.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
You've already lied to me once saying no-one saw an aircraft hit the pentagon, and I've already provided ample testimony from people who did. You do know it makes you look like a stupid twat, right?
Don't you get tired of spouting laughably debunkable bullshit?
I know ENT doesn't, but that's why everyone thinks he's a c u n t.
:)
They clearly state that no seismic evidence exists to suggest that an aircraft of any shape or form hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, not at the time that the Pentagon stated, before, or after.
Take a look at this video;
Eyewitness Missile hit Pentagon on 9/11, No Plane, Government Confiscated 84 Camera Tapes - YouTube
Then we have this,
9/11 Pentagon Reality Check 12: eyewitness ROOSEVELT ROBERTS: Plane Flew OVER the Pentagon! - YouTube
And some more;
The 757 SkyWarrior: 9/11 Pentagon Reality Check 17 - YouTube
Did ya like that? :)
Now you give some credible references to film/video and eye witness accounts to support your emotionally distorted loony claim that an airliner hit the Pentagon, dopey.
By the way, how's yer job going working for that Arab and US oil consortium? Camels and the heat getting to ya, eh
Your mind is flapping again, ENT.
It's funny that you should mention armor-piercing shells, because the plane that flew into the Pentagon behaved like one of them. Except it was constructed quite differently, so it behaved differently.
Instead of being dense and ultra-hard, it was light and semi-rigid, so the effect was for the plane (as it was travelling at speed) to compress and create a relatively small hole in the armored building. Which is exactly what we saw.
https://teakdoor.com/Gallery/albums/u...al_armour1.jpg
Maybe you know better than a CIA employee?
CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything! "Extreme Prejudice" - YouTube
What plane? There wasn't any seismic evidence of an airliner impact at the Pentagon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
Figure that one out, maggot.
They were relatively weak, that is all. What else do you expect from a building purposely constructed to absorb impact ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Susan Lindauer ? According to Wikipedia (and note carefully the last sentence):Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
"In 2005 she was incarcerated at Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, for psychological evaluation. In 2006, she was released from prison after judge Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial.[6][18] He noted that the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a "lengthy delusional history", weakened the prosecution's case. In his decision he wrote, "Lindauer ... could not act successfully as an agent of the Iraqi government without in some way influencing normal people .... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have. The indictment charges only what it describes as an unsuccessful attempt to influence an unnamed government official, and the record shows that even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed."[1]
Waddya mean, "They were relatively weak, that is all."? Bollix! That was not all!!Quote:
Originally Posted by LatindancerThey were relatively weak, that is all. What else do you expect from a building purposely constructed to absorb impact ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Palisades Observatory stated;
"There is no clear seismic signals which can be associated with the airplane crash into the Pentagon."
Isn't that clear enough?
Further, from the same report;
"There appears to be strong seismic signals around 09:38:52 at station MVL (Millersville, Pa; Δ = 139 km), but the signals are too high frequency (5-10 Hz)and too high amplitude (328 nm/s at 139 km).
Hence, it appears be noise perhaps due to electrical disturbances.
Otherwise, there are no clear and consistent seismic wave arrivals in this time window."
The signals indicated a possibility of some form of electrical disturbance, but not enough to indicate that an airliner crashed into the building or the ground there,.... nothing of any comparable magnitude, thus relatively weak...relative to an aircraft impact.
If an airliner impacting the solid earth can give a clear signal, relatively weak signals indicate hardly a smack on the ground.
In this instance at the Pentagon, there's strong indication of a rigged explosive device, hence the electrical activity picked up.
Whatever blew up inside the Pentagon blew up above ground level, as indicated by the hole blown upwards into the second floor of the second ring wall in.
Yup, that's right, if anyone comes close to exposing the truth, they're labelled loons.Quote:
Originally Posted by LatindancerSusan Lindauer ? According to Wikipedia (and note carefully the last sentence):Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
"In 2005 she was incarcerated at Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, for psychological evaluation. In 2006, she was released from prison after judge Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial.[6][18] He noted that the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a "lengthy delusional history", weakened the prosecution's case. In his decision he wrote, "Lindauer ... could not act successfully as an agent of the Iraqi government without in some way influencing normal people .... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have. The indictment charges only what it describes as an unsuccessful attempt to influence an unnamed government official, and the record shows that even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed."[1]
Also, when stressed and persecuted, people crack, and keep poking at them they'll end up reacting in seemingly inappropriate ways, a bit like the case where a dog in a cage can be induced to grow barking mad simply by rattling its cage, so proving to dumb onlookers that the dog was indeed mad int he first place, when in fact it was not, but was driven that way after being caged and tormented.
Many witnesses and whistleblowers to the 9/11 fiasco have suicided, met "accidental" violent deaths, or gone mad, or quite simply disappeared.
Now to add to the Wikipedia cherry picked bit you posted, you little slimeball, here's from Wikipedia;
"In testimony before Judge Mukasey on May, 9, 2006, Dr. Colin Vas from Carswell FMC admitted that over seven months of incarceration, staff observed no signs of hallucinations and no signs of hearing voices, nor any depression or bipolar disorder. Carswell reported that Ms. Lindauer walked 4–6 miles on the track every day, and consistently participated at "indoor recreation activities."
Ms.Lindauer also spent many hours at the prison law library studying up on her case. In its monthly reports, Carswell wrote: "Good physical health. Socializes well. Good intellectual functioning." And "no behavioral problems." [21]
On 16 January 2009, the government decided to not continue with the prosecution saying "prosecuting Lindauer would no longer be in the interests of justice."[6][22]
Antipsychiatrist Thomas Szasz criticized the government's treatment of Lindauer and referred to her captors as "torturers"."
Susan Lindauer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBKK^ You sir are a certifiable loonie. I was working for United Airlines in 2001 and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Are you suggesting that the big bad government "disappeared" 4 planes, including their entire crews and all the passengers and somehow managed to keep it all a secret?
How laughable is that??!? Except it's not funny, because those passengers and crew died in the most horrible of circumstances.
You expect to get the truth from the UN? Before insulting another member, do some serious reading of the research that has been done. I've already suggested two books that you might find enlightening, assuming that you have an open mind.
TonyBkk is a fast shoe salesman,....don't expect 2 much from him.
ENT I have a new design for you.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/09/4589.jpg
Ya know harrybarry, you work for an oil conglomerate structure,.....
U and all your nigga slaves and bosses rely on the GEOLOGISTS to show u where to get your oil, and your income, harrybarry-raghead-USA slave.
The geologists study seismology.
Seismologists tell us that there was no plane crash at the Pentagon, dickhead.
ok HARRY -DICKHEAD BARRY?