Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Where's the plane Spazz, where's the plane?

For all intents and purposes a UK ccourt has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the september 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States.

UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up (Video) | 9/11 and Ground Zero

Originally Posted by hazz

Prattmaster ENT.... you really are a silly boy arn't you.

let me guess.... its for us to prove that supper dapper top secret anti-gravity ball drones didn't hit tower two... and until then you will believe in it along with every everything else you want to believe simply because its the right answer.


magic gravity defying thermite
magic indestructible blackboxes with their indestructible orange paint
magic photos that get dated at any time that's convenient for prattmaster ent.

what a sad delusional boy you are.... perfect TD CSI materal

answer no questions, tell no lies.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

For all intents and purposes a UK ccourt has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the september 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States.

UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up (Video) | 9/11 and Ground Zero

Yup, what could they say, they know he's right

Originally Posted by Dapper

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

For all intents and purposes a UK ccourt has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the september 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States.

UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up (Video) | 9/11 and Ground Zero

Yup, what could they say, they know he's right

Some are still connecting the dots, justifying or covering-up or whatever.

Yet, the truth will be apparent and too late.
The extended and embodied imperial strategies have long been put into place alongside the surface distractions that most fade into.

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Yet, the truth will be apparent and too late.

Might just catch it.

Half-full.

Half-empty and you've already given up mate.

Originally Posted by Dapper

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

For all intents and purposes a UK ccourt has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the september 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States.

UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up (Video) | 9/11 and Ground Zero

Yup, what could they say, they know he's right

I don't suppose that it matters to either of you that that's not actually what happened in that case:

TV licence evader refused to pay up because the 'BBC covered up facts about 9/11' | Daily Mail Online

The court made no such ruling.

^Shut up you autistic muppet

The 's might have been a clue Ant.

^^Oh I see, facts that don't suit are irrelevant are they.

one of are rarer pratt list items

if by winning you mean... found not guilty your wrong

if by winning you mean got a conditional discharge, had to pay 400 pounds court costs... but no fine then yes.... but is that really winning the case? sounds more like a judge being kind to a well meaning harmless loon.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

The 's might have been a clue Ant.

in the context of some of the whacko stuff posted in this thread they aren't much of a clue.

'Dapper' at least believes it's true and no amount of actual facts will dissuade him.

So who told the BBC that WTC7 fell 20 minutes before it did then?

You'll clearly believe only what you want to believe so what would facts matter.

So now you're jumping from BBC coverage to a complete bastardization of Newton's law that you've arbitrarily limited because, according to you, it "CAN ONLY" mean one thing. Incorrect.

It's called confirmation bias: you discount facts that don't accord and place undue weight and meaning on others.

And I don't suppose you could show me where NIST 'admitted' any such thing could you - much less denied it in the first place.

And by show me I mean from NIST themselves. Not one of the echo-chamber blogs repeating what someone else has incorrectly stated until it's accepted as 'FACT!'

Originally Posted by Dapper

That means there was no resistance below.

That CAN ONLY mean that explosives were used.

Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Yeah, by "I mean from NIST themselves. Not one of the echo-chamber blogs repeating what someone else has incorrectly stated until it's accepted as 'FACT!'" I would've thought that vdos would be taken as read and included in that.

But then I forgot who I was talking to.

Originally Posted by Cujo

Originally Posted by Dapper

That means there was no resistance below.

That CAN ONLY mean that explosives were used.

Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Why?
Just a few sentences will do mate

How fucking long does a few sentences take you ffs?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Originally Posted by Dapper

NIST themselves eventually (after fervently denying) admitted that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.

Do you understand what that means?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

And I don't suppose you could show me where NIST 'admitted' any such thing could you - much less denied it in the first place.

And by show me I mean from NIST themselves.

OK - I just carefully watched that answer there. The NIST spokesman clearly stated that the building fell at a rate 40% slower than free fall speed.