Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Leaky gas mains ? Who gives a shit, anyway ? You've cried "wolf" too many times.
Your video is self-contradicting.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

The Great ENT preaches.....to an audience of ONE.....poor dim-witted Albert.

Who's this "Albert" you keep talking about?

I'll save some gems from his inanities and send em to you.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I'll save some gems from his inanities and send em to you.

You miss the whole point of "ignore", do you?

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I'll save some gems from his inanities and send em to you.

You miss the whole point of "ignore", do you?

You can't argue with these people.

They keep blethering on about the fire not being hot enough to melt steel, they may well be right. Thing is though, the official story says bugger all about the steel melting. The official story says it was weakened (which is something hardly in the realm of science fiction, considering).

Pesky things like that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory though. It won't be long before somebody pipes up again saying the official version is a lie because the steel couldn't have melted.

What about WTC 7 Moonraker?

Another tactic.

When faced with something that they can't handle, they then divert to something else instead......

WTC7 was hit by debris from some fucking great big towers right next to them that had fucking great big planes flown into them. Plus it caught on fire. It really is that simple.

No doubt we'll be onto the 'melting steel' nosense again soon.

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Another tactic.

When faced with something that they can't handle, they then divert to something else instead......

WTC7 was hit by debris from some fucking great big towers right next to them that had fucking great big planes flown into them. Plus it caught on fire. It really is that simple.

No doubt we'll be onto the 'melting steel' nosense again soon.

Yeah, I love how these same idiots keep bringing up WTC7 -- yet they always only show the one side of the facade of the building, the one that wasn't damaged.

They conveniently ignore the pictures of the opposite side (the one facing the towers), into which a hearty chunk o' tower fell onto and into, causing a ton of structural damage (again, something that on the day of the event, was clearly shown on TV) - combine that with an uncontrolled fire that raged for 7 hours, and you pretty much have the recipe for a building just "giving" at some point.

WTC7 wasn't a steel mesh web construction, so it was able to last much longer than the 45 minutes of the Twin Towers - but it too went down.

The problem with these conspiracy theorists is that, inherently they lack background, experience and education (notice how they always run away from those questions?), and they simply can't fathom that there are people out there with more awareness and knowledge than they have.

What's next? South American Sinkhole conspiracies?

I keep coming back to wondering what did ENT and the other idiot latch on before 9/11? Illuminati? Bilderbergers? Free Masons?

Originally Posted by Moonraker

WTC7 was hit by debris from some fucking great big towers right next to them that had fucking great big planes flown into them. Plus it caught on fire. It really is that simple.

All the other WTC buildings were hit, fucked up, smashed to pieces yet none of them collapsed. Why did WTC7? (at free fall speed)

You fools can't see the wood for the trees.

Do I think that a building or any object could become severely damaged when hit by enormous chunks of falling concrete and/or steel.

Bizarrely enough, I do.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by Moonraker

WTC7 was hit by debris from some fucking great big towers right next to them that had fucking great big planes flown into them. Plus it caught on fire. It really is that simple.

All the other WTC buildings were hit, fucked up, smashed to pieces yet none of them collapsed.

Perhaps, maybe, (and this is a wild suggestion I know... but), because they weren't as badly damaged as WTC7?

It really is that simple. No really, it is.

Ok sherlock - go google images for the damage to ALL the WTC buildings.

1 and 2 were the twin towers, 7 went down as we know.

Look extensively at the damage to buildings 3,4,5,6.

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Do I think that a building or any object could become severely damaged when hit by enormous chunks of falling concrete and/or steel.

Bizarrely enough, I do.

They were ALL hit - only 7 collapsed - in a freefall stylee.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Do I think that a building or any object could become severely damaged when hit by enormous chunks of falling concrete and/or steel.

Bizarrely enough, I do.

They were ALL hit - only 7 collapsed - in a freefall stylee.

So what?

What does that prove, other than it was damaged enough to collapse and the others weren't?

Sorry mate, but if you don't get it I can't help you.

Can't answer the question then?

Originally Posted by Moonraker

So what?

What does that prove, other than it was damaged enough to collapse and the others weren't?

He's either trolling, stupid or being obtuse, Moonraker. Or a combination .

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Can't answer the question then?

Like I said, you're too dumb to understand the answer.

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Do I think that a building or any object could become severely damaged when hit by enormous chunks of falling concrete and/or steel.

Bizarrely enough, I do.

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Perhaps, maybe, (and this is a wild suggestion I know... but), because they weren't as badly damaged as WTC7?

It really is that simple. No really, it is.

Just wait for the BLACK HELICOPTERS GETTING TO HIM!!!!!

Here's what ENT does repeatedly :

• Provides no evidence to support most of his assertions.
• Repeatedly invokes a privileged body of evidence and ignores the vast body of public evidence.
• Excludes possibilities out of hand, cherry-picking a few issues to address.
• Relies on flat denials

When in doubt, look up Wikipedia:
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
.
.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Do I think that a building or any object could become severely damaged when hit by enormous chunks of falling concrete and/or steel.

Bizarrely enough, I do.

The twin towers exploded sending large sections of steel facade flying outwards across the surrounding area, the concrete simply turned into a massive hot air driven dust cloud.

The buildings damaged by that debris were hit by steel beams, not concrete.

Damaged areas and scale of damage

http://911truth.tripod.com/wtcstatus2.jpg

http://911truth.tripod.com/site1070.jpg


Aerial photographs of WTC showing scale of explosion and damage.

New World Trade Center 9/11 aerial images from ABC News | Mail Online

Steel beams were hurled laterally whole city blocks away from the towers by the force of the explosion

And?......