Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

I got an awesome idea, let's collect and put all the nonbelievers, cynics and skeptics, in a 747 (probably don't need more than one) on a sled at the test facility or better yet remotely pilot a plane like they claim has been done and crash it into the ground at 500 mph in a rock hard field and see what remains? No more questions after that I'll wager..

Only 430 cynics, skeptics and nonbelievers of the 9/11-dun-by-19-arabs-with-box-cutters myth existing in the world?


You really are in lalaland.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

It's been covered before, but Harrybalaclava will be along soon to ridicule you.

I don't think they've ever hidden the fact that the planes would have been shot down if they hadn't crashed. So fuck knows what that shit is supposed to mean.

"The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert, if they wouldn't pay any attention to instructions to move away from the city, as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out," Vice President Dick Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" program Sunday.

And so, according to the official story, the pilots didn't do a damn thing and let the (alleged) plane fly into the Pentagon.

Right.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by Your name here

BBC reported that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it collapsed, while the building was still standing and visible over the left shoulder of the reporter while she said it.

You haven't worked that one out yet ??

She was probably standing in a studio with a photo of it projected behind her. News teams regularly use stock photos as backgrounds for their reports. They do it for convenience.... to save time, money and energy.

What sort of a dumb explanation is that?

She announced the building's collapse 20 minutes before it fell down, dozy.

Was she psychic or something?

(Or maybe just as stupid as you)

Originally Posted by ENT

She announced the building's collapse 20 minutes before it fell down, dozy.

It's already been covered ENT. Now please take your pills and go back to sleep.....

Take a pill koman, your time's up.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Your name here

BBC reported that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it collapsed, while the building was still standing and visible over the left shoulder of the reporter while she said it.

Yes, Teakdoor Does Attract Knobs. Like flies to a steaming pile of sh*t.

It's really quite incredible to encounter such a collection of kooks concentrated in one location.....

Every single "point" that has been raised on this thread has been beaten to death...
None of these things are of any material importance but they can be used to cast doubt, confuse and distract from any reasonable argument.

Even if no connection can be made to the government, and it is clearly shown not to be the bad guy,,,,

Good to see ya labelling yerself as a kook, koman.

All points raised have been argued over and of course, the government kooks and apologists of which you proudly acknowledge association with will continue to bleat on about how government secrets are necessary for the security of the country while about facing as pointed out over former allegiances/enmities such as with Al Quaeda.

Of course people like you will never acknowkedge governmental complicity in murder or crime, you were an employee of HM's gov. a gun-totting grunt in Northern Ireland, so, par for the course eh. Brit?

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by Your name here

BBC reported that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it collapsed, while the building was still standing and visible over the left shoulder of the reporter while she said it.

You haven't worked that one out yet ??

She was probably standing in a studio with a photo of it projected behind her. News teams regularly use stock photos as backgrounds for their reports. They do it for convenience.... to save time, money and energy.

What sort of a dumb explanation is that?

She announced the building's collapse 20 minutes before it fell down, dozy.

Was she psychic or something?

(Or maybe just as stupid as you)

Oh FFS it was a mistake. You do realise every news service in the world was trying to filter and report a shitload of different sources all at the same time, don't you?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to address the six live feeds I gave you when you claimed that no-one showed the second strike live.

Just to remind you ENT..... in case you've forgotten.....

Originally Posted by ENT

OK,.....post the clip you reckon was the live feed clip of a plane hitting a tower at WTC.

Go on.

[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by Your name here

BBC reported that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it collapsed, while the building was still standing and visible over the left shoulder of the reporter while she said it.

You haven't worked that one out yet ??

She was probably standing in a studio with a photo of it projected behind her. News teams regularly use stock photos as backgrounds for their reports. They do it for convenience.... to save time, money and energy.

What sort of a dumb explanation is that?

She announced the building's collapse 20 minutes before it fell down, dozy.

Was she psychic or something?

(Or maybe just as stupid as you)

Oh FFS it was a mistake. You do realise every news service in the world was trying to filter and report a shitload of different sources all at the same time, don't you?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to address the six live feeds I gave you when you claimed that no-one showed the second strike live.

A mistake?


A bloody BIG mistake!

Originally Posted by ENT

Of course people like you will never acknowkedge governmental complicity in murder or crime, you were an employee of HM's gov. a gun-totting grunt in Northern Ireland, so, par for the course eh. Brit

About as real and accurate as any of the other shit you make up. I never toted a gun in NI....but don't let silly facts get in the way eh?.....

Originally Posted by ENT

Of course people like you will never acknowkedge governmental complicity in murder or crime

On the contrary, I probably know a great deal more about what certain government agencies get up to that you ever will..... I mean the real stuff...not the fantasy shit that your loonie websites publish just to drive traffic and revenue.....

Feeling sensitive, koman?

Originally Posted by ENT

Feeling sensitive, koman?

?????? What???

Have you taken a boo at those TV feeds yet? The breaking news ones with a real passenger plane arriving in the middle of a live news bulletin, and ploughing into the second tower.. The footage you told us does not exist....

BTW, where were you when all this happened.....you seem incredibly detached from any of the reality of the whole 9/11 incident..... in a coma, or..?????....

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by Your name here

BBC reported that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it collapsed, while the building was still standing and visible over the left shoulder of the reporter while she said it.

You haven't worked that one out yet ??

She was probably standing in a studio with a photo of it projected behind her. News teams regularly use stock photos as backgrounds for their reports. They do it for convenience.... to save time, money and energy.

What sort of a dumb explanation is that?

She announced the building's collapse 20 minutes before it fell down, dozy.

Was she psychic or something?

(Or maybe just as stupid as you)

Oh FFS it was a mistake. You do realise every news service in the world was trying to filter and report a shitload of different sources all at the same time, don't you?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to address the six live feeds I gave you when you claimed that no-one showed the second strike live.

A mistake?


A bloody BIG mistake!

You can tell it was a mistake because the bloody building was intact in the live shot behind them while they were reporting it you moron.

I just want to remind you of Chief Frank Cruthers' own words; you consistently ignore that the firemen working on the building were fearful of a collapse due to the damage and the fires. But it doesn't fit your narrative so,, much like the live feeds you deny existing, you pretend it never happened.

Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --

Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it.
There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been. That's about it.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I think I'll stop posting on this thread.

Good.

Now go back down into your little hole, wombat.

[QUOTE=Latindancer;2864545]

Originally Posted by ENT

Your comments about those photos of yours above are way past "looney". They are simply stupid. Surely nobody could be stupid enough to actually believe that bad, spur of the moment photography, blown up photographically, could be "analyzed" the way you claim to. Therefore I say you're trolling, and have been all the time about 9/11.

It wasn't a photo, dipsh*t, it was one of the videos aired on the media, CNN, maybe?

The problem is that, faced with insurmoutable evidence that everything he spouts is a crock of shit, he still cannot bring himself to believe it, because doing so would confirm that he is simply a failure who has no purpose in life.

The people who accept the official version of the story take glee in explaining some of the easy points that skeptics brought up but conviently ignore the more difficult to explain incongruencies.

Nobody wants to offer an explanation why the media reported the passenger lists just a few hours after the attack and all 19 of the hijackers names were missing.

How did that happen? The airlines sent the lists to the government, who already knew the names of all 19 hijackers and redacted them and sent the lists back to the airlines to release to the media??

Shouldn't all the names of all the passengers be on the manifest?

What about the half dozen people who made calls on their CELL phones while the planes were flying 400-500 knots at altitudes of over 10,000 feet?

I flew 185,000 miles last year, I spent hours in holding patterns over JFK, Dulles, O'Hare. I've turned my phone on while aloft numerous times and I never got a signal, not on commercial flight, private jets or small GA planes. Experiments were conducted with various phones in a variety of planes, not a single one was able to get a signal, even in a slow, low-flying Cessna. Cell phone towers are polarized for horizontal transmission and require a longer time to connect than the time you're within range when traveling in a plane.

In the history of the world only three steel frame buildings ever collapsed from a fire. The twin towers and building 7. A similar skyscraper in Madrid burned for almost a day and never collapsed.

Standing between the twin towers and building 7 are two other buildings, neither of them were damaged. The official explanation is that the tower leaned while collapsing (Did you see that in the video, I didn't, it fell right square in it's own footprint) and the debris jumped over two buildings and hit building 7 and damaged it enough to make it collapse, at free-fall speed. This building had fires started by falling debris on fire, it didn't have 400,000 lbs of ATF burning inside like the towers. The jet fuel was the explanation for the twin towers falling.

If all it takes to reduce a building to dust, why do demolition companies place explosive charges on ALL the columns of ALL the floors when all it takes is to take out the columns on the top floor and let gravity do the rest?

Why if no other steel framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fire, was the fire chief so sure it would collapse that he pulled all the firefighters and announced to the media that they expected it to collapse.

In 1945 a ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building (built in 1929). The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor. It's still standing.

Does anyone care to address these points, or is it easier to just make ad hominem attacks on the skeptics?

I'd love to be proven wrong but there are still too many unanswered questions for me just to swallow the sheeple food without question.

Without a doubt WTC7 gives credence to a conspiracy theory, but the feds have got that locked down tighter than a gnats chuff, without hard evidence it will forever remain a matter of opinion.