Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Latindancer

This is what I said a long time ago in this thread....it's surprising the impacts alone did not cause immediate collapse of at least parts of the buildings. The forces involved were enormous.

Yes, but most simple people don't grasp that - I always say that the biggest ally of truth (and enemy of dumbasses) is the simple calculator.

ENT would rather believe in the machinations of werewolves on Wall Street, rather than use his brain and do some math.

Albert can't even figure out time differences and propagation problems.

It won't make any difference, ENT's special hat deflects them away.

It seems he used special crotch-protecting talcum powder, too. Or is that from Albert's bottom ?

Originally Posted by Koojo

It certainly looks it, it certainly looks like a comercial jet too.

I would agree with you. However, if that pic was a video (which we've all seen 1000 times), in the next second or so you see it impact, and the wings cut a cartoon like wing shape either side of the body. Why then is there not even a scratch either side of the hole at the pentagon?

1) Because there are columns inside.

2) Wings partially fold back upon impact. They stick out a lot and wrap themselves around columns. And actually, this is a good reason to see why the same thing happened at the Pentagon. Unlike at the Pentagon. these WTC planes were seen and filmed....by many.
.
.
.

^

Yeah, no columns in the towers

Wings fold back? is that on your special remote control you goat?

^^ You love editing after seeing a reply don't you you slimy nonce.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

i would agree with you. However, if that pic was a video (which we've all seen 1000 times), in the next second or so you see it impact, and the wings cut a cartoon like wing shape either side of the body. Why then is there not even a scratch either side of the hole at the pentagon?

oh? The WTC and Pentagon are made of the same materials, and constructed the same way? Little did I know.

Can you elaborate, Albert?

^ You can't even change a light bulb I bet, what you know about bricks, concrete, plaster and re-inforcing Daffy?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Columns or equivalent.
And no need to be mannerless, Albert. I edit a lot, but have never ONCE, EVER edited to get out of saying something after someone has replied and pointed out something silly I've said.

Just noticed I didn't read your post properly.

The Pentagon is a specially armoured building, Albert. It is the building from which the US plans wars !!! And there WERE marks on the building. "Not a scratch" is incorrect.
.
.
.

And what about the no-parking sign on the left of the hole, was that a specially strengthened kevlar no parking sign?

That part of the Pentagon had been constructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes—enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety. The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows—2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each—that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.

Note:
1) blast-resistant windows—2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each—

2)constructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

1) Because there are columns inside.

2) Wings partially fold back upon impact. They stick out a lot and wrap themselves around columns. And actually, this is a good reason to see why the same thing happened at the Pentagon. Unlike at the Pentagon. these WTC planes were seen and filmed....by many.
.
.
.

Wings partially fold back upon impact.

Like the way they didn't on impact on WTC 1 and 2.


the same thing happened at the Pentagon.

Which they didn't do, as they were nonexistent

WTC buildings weren't ARMOURED, cretin. And as you have pointed out, they were fairly flimsy. Wasn't glass featured strongly in them ??

Fuck, you really are an UBER-troll, and full of shit. No wonder people abandon threads as soon as you show up. When you show up, you ensure everyone has a negative experience.
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

^ You can't even change a light bulb I bet, what you know about bricks, concrete, plaster and re-inforcing Daffy?

Answer the question - are the two buildings/structures built from the same materials?

Would the two buildings react in the exacts same way to an airplane slamming into each?

As to your question - I have a pretty solid structural engineering background, but I know for a fact that a wall of concrete will act differently than a network of suspended steel trusses, for example. I also know that bricks did not structurally feature in either building.

More importantly - since you raised the specter of education and knowledge background - how about your's?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

WTC buildings weren't ARMOURED, cretin. And as you have pointed out, they were fairly flimsy. Wasn't glass featured strongly in them ??

Fuck, you really are an UBER-troll, and full of shit. No wonder people abandon threads as soon as you show up. When you show up, you ensure everyone has a negative experience.

He's just trying to cover up his embarrassing lack of knowledge regarding the time differences - once I started explaining myself scientistically, using numbers and stuff, he hightailed it out of here, tail tucked and humiliated.

Like now, he's claiming that two structures, constructed 180 degrees differently, are somehow supposed to act identically to being hit by planes. Yeah, right - WTC = glass and steel trusses; Pentagon = reinforced, blast-proof concrete.

Yeah, those windows that don't break because they were bomb proof. How dare you bring facts!

Just remind him of the time difference and demand he explain it!!

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Columns or equivalent.
And no need to be mannerless, Albert. I edit a lot, but have never ONCE, EVER edited to get out of saying something after someone has replied and pointed out something silly I've said

Your a shit-headed little hypocrite.

You've been hurling insults since day one you prick.

Originally Posted by ENT

Latindancer, you've made up that description of the Pentagon outer wall construction.
Those walls were not built to take bomb blasts and were being retro-fitted when the blast occurred..

I copied it from Wikipedia, fukwit and uber-troll.

And look back at the first 9/11 thread. I was quite polite for a long time, liar. Till you proved to be a mannerless jerk.

Pentagon first floor facade after fire showing size of entry.and walls left and right of fire zone.

Images #2 and #12 show how the uncollapsed first floor slab that the "airliner " is supposed to have passed under.

About 10 ft high.


Unbelievable New Pentagon Pictures from 9/11

Originally Posted by ENT

Where did you get your education? Karachi?

This thread is fun.

LD and Daffy -

So you reckon the pentagon was well hard . So hard that the wings obliterated to nothing, yet the nose went through like butter.

dumb and dumber you two.