Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

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

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

I was working for United Airlines in 2001 and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

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 ?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Tony, you are much closer to the truth than you think. From interacting with ENT on this forum for 2 years now, I can tell that he _IS_ in fact a loonie. He has virtually admitted that he suffers from some type of mental condition, and as an inability to discern between reality and fantasy is a main symptom of schizophrenia, I think that this is at least part of it.
But he just keeps banging on and actually discrediting the very movement and point of view which he seems to espouse.

Complacency does not equal complicity. Some people in government had prior warning that SOMETHING was just about to happen, and some people may well have known a little more detail than they let on. They may well have made a lot of money on the stock or futures market when the planes hit. But to say the buildings were demolished by explosive charges is plain stupid : they did not NEED to be. Terrorists did it FOR the owner or whoever benefited from having it conveniently done. And the planes almost sheared through them, pretty well guaranteeing a collapse.

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

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.



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.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Interestingly the cameraman that took that famous film, of the the plane flying in over his head while he was filming that morning with firemen, talks about it in the documentary.

Yes, it was close enough for him to see the airline markings.

Another one that tossers like ENT will discard as being part of the conspiracy or mistaken.

Damned 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!!

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?

Can I suggest you watch the documentary and listen to him describe what was happening at the time?

Because frankly criticising it without watching it just makes you look an even bigger fucking idiot.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

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.

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.

overwhelming evidence? been watching that stacey dooley again eh?

(me and pat would like to DP her though)

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Tony, you are much closer to the truth than you think. From interacting with ENT on this forum for 2 years now, I can tell that he _IS_ in fact a loonie. He has virtually admitted that he suffers from some type of mental condition, and as an inability to discern between reality and fantasy is a main symptom of schizophrenia, I think that this is at least part of it.
But he just keeps banging on and actually discrediting the very movement and point of view which he seems to espouse.

Complacency does not equal complicity. Some people in government had prior warning that SOMETHING was just about to happen, and some people may well have known a little more detail than they let on. They may well have made a lot of money on the stock or futures market when the planes hit. But to say the buildings were demolished by explosive charges is plain stupid : they did not NEED to be. Terrorists did it FOR the owner or whoever benefited from having it conveniently done. And the planes almost sheared through them, pretty well guaranteeing a collapse.

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

It's no longer in doubt where Saddams WMD's ended up, just like was predicted.

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.”

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

It's no longer in doubt where Saddams WMD's ended up, just like was predicted.

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?

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

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

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.

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.

No one lied to ya, ya oversensitive bean counter, no one saw a plane hit the Pentagon. so go argue with US Palisades Observatory.

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;




Then we have this,



And some more;




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.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

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.

What plane? There wasn't any seismic evidence of an airliner impact at the Pentagon.

Figure that one out, maggot.

Originally Posted by ENT

We concluded that the plane impact to the Pentagon generated relatively-weak seismic signals.(**)



There is no clear seismic signals which can be associated with the airplane crash into the Pentagon.

They were relatively weak, that is all. What else do you expect from a building purposely constructed to absorb impact ?

Originally Posted by ENT

Maybe you know better than a CIA employee?

Susan Lindauer ? According to Wikipedia (and note carefully the last sentence):

"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]

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by ENT

Maybe you know better than a CIA employee?

Susan Lindauer ? According to Wikipedia (and note carefully the last sentence):

"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]

Yup, that's right, if anyone comes close to exposing the truth, they're labelled loons.

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

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by ENT

A total of 265 persons, including aircrew and hijackers, were claimed by FBI to have died in Flts AA11, AA77. UA93 and UA175 on 9/11/2001.

AA Flts 11 and 77 were not scheduled to, neither did they, take off that day.

UA Flts 93 and 175 were diverted, and are still flying.

Scroll back through the rest of this thread and you'll find plenty of references regarding the plane swap that went on.

^ 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.

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.

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?