Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The only thing that will help ENT is some serious therapy and a serious cocktail of psychotropics.

Indeed....preferably from hypodermics as big as bicycle pumps.

Originally Posted by ENT

Precisely.

The opposition's argument to the view that 9/11 was an inside job is composed of a modicum of reasonable conjecture, lots of distractions from the topic with a purposeful view to derail the thread, a surfeit of ad hominem bile, similarly intended, then the lot liberally sprinkled with profanities as their only refutation of the OP.

If they (the opposition) had been more positively inclined, we could have enjoyed a decent discussion comparing evidences, but the opposition is not so inclined.

They prefer to vigorously try to completely silence any view that doesn't support the official 9/11 story.

They have a vested interest in doing so, because without believing the official story, their lives would be repugnant to them.


They are also extremely dim....that's obvious.

And that comes under:

rejection or refutation of the information

Absolutely textbook!

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.

The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.

Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence),

belief perseverance

(when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false),

the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

Like when a piece of planted airliner wing turned up in NY earlier this year and you and your sort got into ecstatic paroxysms of joy over the belief that this finally was the smoking gun, the absolute proof that 19-Arabs-with- box-cutters hit USA on 9/11?


Stick to your day jobs chaps, shelf-stacking and bean-counting are horribly boring jobs, but just remember, be happy in your work, drones.

Does anyone agree on anything, yet?

Nope.

Originally Posted by leemo

Does anyone agree on anything, yet?

Well, quite a few people agree about ENT being.....https://teakdoor.com/members-only/134...lshitters.html (Teak Door's worst Bullshitters.)


Hey ENT ! Take a look sometime at the damage an IED does to an armoured vehicle, and the size of the hole it makes.

Compare that "penetration profile" with the cookie-cutter shapes left by supposed "airliners" on towers 1 and 2 WTC that day.

No comparison whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Latindancer;2607041Hey ENT ! Take a look sometime at the damage an IED does to an armoured vehicle, and the size of the hole it makes.[/QUOTE]

A stupid comparison from a stupid person.

An IED doesn't even remotely resemble an airliner in size or potential for explosive destruction.

But we're not talking about WTC. We're talking about the Pentagon. And we're talking about a mass of material which behaved like a semi-liquid, being forced into an immovable object at high speed. Which is what happened at the Pentagon and is seen in IED explosions.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

But we're not talking about WTC. We're talking about the Pentagon. And we're talking about a mass of material which behaved like a semi-liquid, being forced into an immovable object at high speed.

What d'ya think that pic is about but the Pentagon. Wake up!

And where in lalaland did you get the idea that there was "a mass of material which behaved like a semi-liquid, being forced into an immovable object at high speed."?

Do you subsist entirely upon a diet of Hollywood and "Popular Mechanics"?

Originally Posted by ENT

What d'ya think that pic is about but the Pentagon. Wake up!

Here : You changed the subject by suddenly talking about WTC.

Originally Posted by ENT

Compare that "penetration profile" with the cookie-cutter shapes left by supposed "airliners" on towers 1 and 2 WTC that day.

No comparison whatsoever.

Feeling a trifle irrational tonight ?

You seem to have a short attention span and appear to be unable to cope with ambiguity, as in comparison.

Vis;
You say (from above)," You changed the subject by suddenly talking about WTC."

Wrong again, wombat, I merely used WTC as a comparative example to THAT BLOODY SMALL HOLE IN THE PENTAGON supposedly made by an airliner,


THIS ONE.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

But we're not talking about WTC. We're talking about the Pentagon. And we're talking about a mass of material which behaved like a semi-liquid, being forced into an immovable object at high speed. Which is what happened at the Pentagon and is seen in IED explosions.

This has to be one of the stupidest things ever read on the internet.

It's quite obvious that the posters that keep putting ENT down have never watched the full 3+ hours of "September 11 - the new pearl harbor" documentry. If they had we wouldn't be where this thread is now. I watched the full 3+ hours of the documentary as a believer it that it really happened. After the first hour I was converted. 9/11 was definately a put up job.

The double digit IQ crowd

Are you refering to me?

No, to ENT's detractors

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

No, to ENT's detractors

I'm not his detractor, I'm his shrink.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

It's quite obvious that the posters that keep putting ENT down have never watched the full 3+ hours of "September 11 - the new pearl harbor" documentary.

Ok then,

I'm up for watching that Doco, can any one tell me where I can get it on DVD in Bangkok. ?

Originally Posted by terry57

I'm up for watching that Doco, can any one tell me where I can get it on DVD in Bangkok. ?

No need Tel, it's on youtube.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I'm not his detractor, I'm his shrink.

So you're a shrink working in the sand pit?



Watch the above doco too Harry - and fix the fuck up

^

TA,

I try and watch the friggin thing, just a long slog on a computer screen.

I was hoping I could get a copy on DVD so I can view it on the big screen.

So much better that way.

Originally Posted by terry57

TA,

I try and watch the friggin thing, just a long slog on a computer screen.

I was hoping I could get a copy on DVD so I can view it on the big screen.

So much better that way.

when you watch it on youtube it defaults to a low quality. Click the cog type icon bottom right of the video frame. That opens a drop down menu. Just select the highest number 780 - has a HD logo next to it. Changes the quality to HD. Obviously takes longer to load, but just hit pause and fuck off for 30 minutes and give it a chance to load.