Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Even though you've been a member here since 2006, you still _regularly_ fail to quote people correctly. What does that tell us ?

Nothing, other than that you're a pedantic OCD schizo.

Oh.....just noticing small details....and extrapolating to bigger ones. Of course, YOU never make comments like that, do you ??

^^ Probably nonsense that Albert has posted. Along with the usual misinformation.

Like that shell hole pic you posted,.....off topic....etc.

Originally Posted by ENT

Obviously you haven;t a clue about crime or crash investigation, so your ignorance may be excusable

Just a little bit of a clue after a stint in insurance claims investigation and adjusting....but I'm prepared to admit to a lack of high level expertise like yours ENT...

When you see a few really big fires or explosive events and witness with your own eyes what can survive such events in completely inexplicable ways, while other seemingly indestructible materials are completely destroyed; it can change what you expect to find at the site of a catastrophic event. I remember finding a few photos and odd bits of document still readable, in a burned out building that literally melted steel girders and glass. How can that be possible.? Pure chance?...it just happens and it's not that uncommon.

This may provide a small clue as to why every little thing can't be explained to the full satisfaction of those who believe in fairy tales and fantasy stories but discard an official forensics report as a cover- up, simply because it does not answer the unanswerable.

As usual this thread lurches along with people popping up here and there with the same tire old stuff and refusing to accept any explanation for anything. Statements are made that have no foundation in truth or reality, but in the conspiracy world such things are of no importance. Carry on......

^^ Well, it's NOT off-topic, actually. And I'm amazed you think so.

In terms of physics, it's similar, and almost the miniature equivalent of Albert's hole in Pentagon photo. Same principles at work.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

In terms of physics, it's similar, and almost the miniature equivalent of Albert's hole in Pentagon photo. Same principles at work.

Your hole was made, I assume, by a projectile that was round in shape, the same as a bullet? Or a may be a cruise missile? Whereas the hole in Alberts picture is supposed to depict a projectile with a wing span of nearly 60m have crashed in to it. There's a big difference.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by ENT

Obviously you haven;t a clue about crime or crash investigation, so your ignorance may be excusable

Just a little bit of a clue after a stint in insurance claims investigation and adjusting....but I'm prepared to admit to a lack of high level expertise like yours ENT...

When you see a few really big fires or explosive events and witness with your own eyes what can survive such events in completely inexplicable ways, while other seemingly indestructible materials are completely destroyed; it can change what you expect to find at the site of a catastrophic event. I remember finding a few photos and odd bits of document still readable, in a burned out building that literally melted steel girders and glass. How can that be possible.? Pure chance?...it just happens and it's not that uncommon.

This may provide a small clue as to why every little thing can't be explained to the full satisfaction of those who believe in fairy tales and fantasy stories but discard an official forensics report as a cover- up, simply because it does not answer the unanswerable.

That's generous of you, koman, as forensics does indeed involve stringent application of protocols, including exclusion zones and non-tampering with evidence as had occurred at the Pentagon, Shanksville and WTC New York.

But what's a few bits of unburnt paper got to do with this story?

It wasn't pure chance that caused them to survive a seemingly catastrophic inferno.
There was a reason.

The thing is about those little bits of paper and plastic, they all add up to form the big picture, and they're ALL necessary in full and proper investigation of an event, insurance claims or not.

There is no such thing as the unanswerable in forensics.

So why haven't you given any answers ?

You& Albert have not...even THREE YEARS after I first encountered you, come up with any credible alternative explanation for the towers or the Pentagon.
Just lots of questions (which were answered in depth)...then MORE questions, ad hominem attacks, really stupid scenarios like grainy, pixelated still shots taken from videos and talk of "morphing". WTF ??


BTW...Aside from the wings, there is not too much difference in the physics. Ant the Pentagon is an armoured building.

Waffle on,....

I believe you have done so for every 9/11 thread you have participated in... Tell us more about morphing, ENT. I'm fascinated..

Originally Posted by ENT

There is no such thing as the unanswerable in forensics.

In that single sentence you have confirmed beyond a doubt that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Apart from my own (limited) experience, one of my brothers was a pathologist and forensic scientist for 40 years. He would be mightily amused at your view of the world of forensics......

There are post mortems where the exact cause of death can not be established with certainty. There are fires where the cause and exact origin can not be clearly established...and there are many other situations where even the most rigorous forensic examinations can not provide all of the answers. Much of the time we can, but not always...and especially where very unusual events take place.

I thought even an average 12 year old schoolboy would have known that, but apparently you have not come to this realization just yet.... time to do your homework ENT or you will have to leave the class......

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

"When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999."

You really don't know much about politics, do you?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

It's just two people here who are mentally challenged : ENT and Albert. But you get that on a public forum....plus trolling by those two.

Don't forget Your_name_here and a couple of others they'll feel left out if you do though certainly ENT and ShagsNastierLadyBoys are definitely the forerunners....

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by Latindancer

In terms of physics, it's similar, and almost the miniature equivalent of Albert's hole in Pentagon photo. Same principles at work.

Your hole was made, I assume, by a projectile that was round in shape, the same as a bullet? Or a may be a cruise missile? Whereas the hole in Alberts picture is supposed to depict a projectile with a wing span of nearly 60m have crashed in to it. There's a big difference.

Yes, hollow aluminum wings dangling on the outer edges of an airplane that have virtually no resistance to an impact such as this, simply mind boggling the ignorance displayed by the skeptics in this thread..

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

the ignorance displayed by the skeptics in this thread..

So we're all "ignorant" if it's opposite to your way of thinking?

Thanks, you've single-handedly proven that it's a lot easier to toss out recycled insults than it is to come up with intelligent explanations for any of the simple questions I brought up that you and the other brainwashed government apologists are avoiding and ignoring.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by Latindancer

It's just two people here who are mentally challenged : ENT and Albert. But you get that on a public forum....plus trolling by those two.

Don't forget Your_name_here and a couple of others they'll feel left out if you do though certainly ENT and ShagsNastierLadyBoys are definitely the forerunners....

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

"When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999."

You really don't know much about politics, do you?

Or business.

Conveniently ignoring the two 3300kg Roll Royce engines attached to these hollow aluminum wings I see.

If the facts get in the way of your opinion, just ignore them. I'm guessing you're not a retired scientist.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by Latindancer

In terms of physics, it's similar, and almost the miniature equivalent of Albert's hole in Pentagon photo. Same principles at work.

Your hole was made, I assume, by a projectile that was round in shape, the same as a bullet? Or a may be a cruise missile? Whereas the hole in Alberts picture is supposed to depict a projectile with a wing span of nearly 60m have crashed in to it. There's a big difference.

Yes, hollow aluminum wings dangling on the outer edges of an airplane that have virtually no resistance to an impact such as this, simply mind boggling the ignorance displayed by the skeptics in this thread..

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by ENT

There is no such thing as the unanswerable in forensics.

In that single sentence you have confirmed beyond a doubt that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Apart from my own (limited) experience, one of my brothers was a pathologist and forensic scientist for 40 years. He would be mightily amused at your view of the world of forensics.

There are post mortems where the exact cause of death can not be established with certainty. There are fires where the cause and exact origin can not be clearly established...and there are many other situations where even the most rigorous forensic examinations can not provide all of the answers. Much of the time we can, but not always...and especially where very unusual events take place.

I doubt very much that you have much insight into forensic science, judging by your opinion and what might be your and your brother's limited experience in forensics, but a scientist can not afford the luxury of belief, including the belief that a question is unanswerable.

The answer may be a long time coming, but science is only as blind as the limits and constraints created by the paradigms of protocols, including finances, the amount of time given and it's practitioners, including you and your brother.

It seems that you (and yours) work with inferior colleagues not practiced in the exacting demands of laboratory search and cross search.

These days the exact cause of death can in fact be established, given time (and money), but not in your world, which I assume is somewhere in the Americas, famous for missing the obvious, and even more famous for its shoddy forensic practices.

The causes of fires can also be established easily given analytical techniques that were not common place ten years ago, but the joys of such discovery are not open to you, as you indicate.

Unusual situations call for unusual degrees of analysis, so nothing can be simply ruled out or put into the "too hard basket", as used to be the case when Mr Plod the copper was in charge of crime scene evidence collection and analysis.

It's different these days, a fact that you seem to be unaware of, as it takes a forensic anthropologist/geologist/metallurgist etc, each an expert in his/her particular field to gather and analyze the evidences available.

Also, I'll point out to you that forensic science is simply the presentation of scientifically analyzed and empirically derived data in a court of law, a point you seem to have overlooked.

The true work is in painstaking investigative search, research and analysis, in the lab, of collected samples deemed pertinent to the establishing of cause and effect in a given situation.

Forensics is what happens to the results afterwards, as presented in a legal context in a court of law.

Something that you, of course seem to be blissfully unaware of.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

"When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999."

You really don't know much about politics, do you?

Or business.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

"When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999."

You really don't know much about politics, do you?

Or business.

Explain that, Humbert. You seem to think that you know something.

A lengthy and completely meaningless diatribe using a bit of excess vocabulary in a futile attempt to seem credible......

Bottom line. Forensic science does not always provide the answers with complete certainty, however good the scientists or the environment in which they work. That's the way it IS.

Limited experience--3 degrees including a Phd + 40 years of experience (not me, the brother) .....of course that could not possibly match ENT with his access to an internet search engine...

Fuck me you are one serious piece of work ENT......

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

simply mind boggling the ignorance displayed by the septics in this thread..

Quite