Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

ENT, it is your interpretation of what people say which is at fault. You have consistently posted videos and links which mean precisely nothing.

Originally Posted by terry57

So Albert, why do you think the Feds would of gone to all that trouble flying planes into the Towers when they could of just blown them up and obtained the same result ?

How could anyone of got the explosives in there with such tight security?

ENT strategy # 4:

Originally Posted by ENT

Reasonable? Not at all. Your views are pure bunkum.

Here's what ENT does repeatedly :

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

And that's BEFORE all the childish insults and trolling.
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

How could anyone of got the explosives in there with such tight security?

How did they get in the thermite you say was in there ?


A little brain-damaged this morning, are we Albert ?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

ENT strategy # 4:

Originally Posted by ENT

Reasonable? Not at all. Your views are pure bunkum.

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

Why do you quote from the 25 Rules of Disinformation..?

Oh, wait... :-)

So, ENT, what is thermite made of?

What is it?

Come on, I'm sure you can figure it out.

Originally Posted by ENT

Compared to the NY firemen who have given their personal accounts of what happened on 9/11, your views are in total conflict with theirs, who actually fought those fires.

Why is that Terry?

A very simple answer for you ENT and a fact.

Its called human nature and freedom of speech. In any large work force whether it be Army, Police, Fireman or the Micky Mouse Club you will always have a small percentage of those people disagreeing with the majority.

Its there right under the constitution and the democratic process at work, I salute it and honer it as it allows fukers like you to bang on and on with mindless shit and not be executed.

The firefighting force in New York comprises thousands of individuals, a very small minority hold your line but the vast majority know your line is crooked as horse shit.

There's your answer ENT and this is the fact of the matter.

25 Rules of Disinformation

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - 911truth.org

Funny how these are regularly used by ENT and "truthers" to avoid having to be truthful.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

It's quite obvious that our friend Prufrock (really, proofWreck) is very fond of Rule #25.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

How did they get in the thermite you say was in there ?

A little brain-damaged this morning, are we Albert ?

Oh no, Alberts over at ENT's gaff quaffing the last of ENTS Meds.

Firstly we got ENT telling all our readers that a missile did not hit the Pentagon nor was it a Plane now we have Albert telling us that one could not smuggle explosives into the Twin towers because of the security but the Towers were definitely destroyed in a controlled demolition.

Ya gota laugh don't ya, these two do Laural and Hardy proud.

I'm loving this shit as I ain't had so much fun since the days of my old mate AUNTY.

Thing was though, Aunty could actually maintain and hold a decent debate and give the lads a run for there money.

Fuk me, if Aunty was here he would have ENT doing cart wheels, OH well I just got to keep doing it all on my own.

Keep rolling ENT, you'll stop eventually when you hit the bottom of that abyss.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by terry57

So Albert, why do you think the Feds would of gone to all that trouble flying planes into the Towers when they could of just blown them up and obtained the same result ?

How could anyone of got the explosives in there with such tight security?

(scratches head)

Punter 1 "Holy Fuck - they blew up the Twin Towers"
Punter 2 "Holy Fuck - how did they do that?"
Punter 1 "Apparentley they got loads of guys in there past all the mental tight security and cameras and sensors and rigged those puppies up"
Punter 2 "How the fuck did they do that?"
Punter 1 "Shit... must have been an inside job"

or


Punter 1 "Holy Fuck - they blew up the Twin Towers"
Punter 2 "Holy Fuck - how did they do that?"
Punter 1 "These crazy mullahs hijacked jets and smashed them into the buildings"
Punter 2 "Let's go get those fuckers!"

Originally Posted by terry57

Originally Posted by Latindancer

How did they get in the thermite you say was in there ?

A little brain-damaged this morning, are we Albert ?

Oh no, Alberts over at ENT's gaff quaffing the last of ENTS Meds.

Firstly we got ENT telling all our readers that a missile did not hit the Pentagon nor was it a Plane now we have Albert telling us that one could not smuggle explosives into the Twin towers because of the security but the Towers were definitely destroyed in a controlled demolition.

Ya gota laugh don't ya, these two do Laural and Hardy proud.

I'm loving this shit as I ain't had so much fun since the days of my old mate AUNTY.

Thing was though, Aunty could actually maintain and hold a decent debate and give the lads a run for there money.

Fuk me, if Aunty was here he would have ENT doing cart wheels, OH well I just got to keep doing it all on my own.

Keep rolling ENT, you'll stop eventually when you hit the bottom of that abyss.

Hey Terry, why don't you pop off down the beach and take some nice pictures

Originally Posted by terry57

Originally Posted by ENT

Compared to the NY firemen who have given their personal accounts of what happened on 9/11, your views are in total conflict with theirs, who actually fought those fires.

Why is that Terry?

A very simple answer for you ENT and a fact.

Its called human nature and freedom of speech. In any large work force whether it be Army, Police, Fireman or the Micky Mouse Club you will always have a small percentage of those people disagreeing with the majority.

The firefighting force in New York comprises thousands of individuals, a very small minority hold your line but the vast majority know your line is crooked as horse shit.

There's your answer ENT and this is the fact of the matter.

Facts?

Within a month of 9/11, NYC fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen, a 30-year NYFD vet, set up interviews with fire, port authority police and EMT first responders, getting their initial impressions of what they experienced on Sept 11. The stories of 503 men and women is 12,000 pages, the most comprehensive on-the-scene report of what happened that day. Graeme MacQueen, a recently retired religious studies professor, read all 12,000 pages. In addition to the heartrending nature of many of the stories, the consistent theme was of hearing, feeling and seeing explosions, a controlled demolition.

Failure to officially acknowledge this evidence is further proof of an inside job by government, and complicity in the coverup by the media. MacQueen, a Buddhist scholar (McMaster University, Ontario, Canada), narrowed down the testimony of 118 interviews as especially court-worthy testimony. But he notes the entire testimony was excluded by the 9/11 Commission. Nor did the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) consider controlled demolition as a hypothesis for the obliteration of the WTC buildings.
Goon Squad: Why did the 9/11 Commission Refuse to Listen to NYFD Firefighters Who Were at the WTC Scene?

You're a liar Terry 57. You're not a fireman.

Originally Posted by terry57

Originally Posted by ENT

Compared to the NY firemen who have given their personal accounts of what happened on 9/11, your views are in total conflict with theirs, who actually fought those fires.

Why is that Terry?

A very simple answer for you ENT and a fact.

Its called human nature and freedom of speech. In any large work force whether it be Army, Police, Fireman or the Micky Mouse Club you will always have a small percentage of those people disagreeing with the majority.

Its there right under the constitution and the democratic process at work, I salute it and honer it as it allows fukers like you to bang on and on with mindless shit and not be executed.

The firefighting force in New York comprises thousands of individuals, a very small minority hold your line but the vast majority know your line is crooked as horse shit.

There's your answer ENT and this is the fact of the matter.

I think we can probably take Terry's answer as being the definitive one on the subject of NY firemen witnesses.....and even the subject of conspiracy theorists on general.

Now shut up and piss off, ENT...you nasty, toxic little turd.
.
.
.

See, Albert was way more entertaining when he was "driven" by our good buddy proofWreck, but then (once exposed for who he is) he flounced and handed the keys to the other idiot, who doesn't even care about 9/11 (hence why he's on iggy, now).

It's kinda funny that a guy calling himself a "truther" only operates by subterfuge and lies. Oh well, I have no doubt he's reading all of this, barely holding back responding until he has another avatar set up.

I really think we should start another thread - one dedicated to just facts and truth.

Originally Posted by ENT

You're a liar Terry 57. You're not a fireman.

YOU'RE A LIAR, ENT!!

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

I really think we should start another thread - one dedicated to just facts and truth.

Do that.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Hey Terry, why don't you pop off down the beach and take some nice pictures

Yes sterling Idea, bit early at the moment and must give it another hour or so before the hot pussy wanders along.

But anyway back to business Albert, why fly jets onto the Towers when there was no need to at all considering the Yanks do what the fuk they want to do anyway ?

Come on Out with it and no fuking around.

Reasonable answer for a reading public please.

^ you really, really don't want me to. Trust me.

^^I really, really want you to.