9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

cyrusdvirus

spider guardian wrote: »

Ever play Metal Gear Solid 3? There's a boss in that game that fires killer bees at you. Was he based on a real-life character then?

Yeah, he lives next door to me. There's a big flower bed in the back garden, that's how i know

smash

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Backpedal much? Only a few hours ago you stated 'there's no way in hell a plane hit the Pentagon', now you're merely sceptical?

What has imagination got to do with it? It's not a fairy tale, this actually happened. Plenty of witnesses, plenty of people who know what went on and how it went on.....and then a whole other pile of people who weren't there, who don't know what they're talking about and who chose to reject all rational explanations in favour of fanciful, ludicrous and unproven (nay, unprovable) nonsense

The proof is there... http://imageshack.us/f/98/911b.jpg/

cyrusdvirus

smash wrote: »

The proof is there... http://imageshack.us/f/98/911b.jpg/

So what you are saying is the nice round circular hole was created by a missile?

You DO know that the front part of a missile has a little thing called a warhead. A warhead is explosive. It goes bang. The back part of a missile is made of fuel and engine. The fuel is also explosive. It will also go bang, and burn. The engine of a cruise missile is not the same size as the engine on a bloody Cessna, let alone a jet.

Now, does it not make more sense for a 200 foot long jet travelling at 500mph with a maximum take off weight of 116 Tonnes (I'll admit that i don't know what weight American 77 took off with) to punch a hole through 3 wings of a building than for, lets say, a tomahawk cruise missile, with a maximum speed of 550 mph, maximum weight of 1.6 tonnes and a length of 20 feet do the same damage?

Oh yeah, A 757 cabin is 11 1/2 feet wide. A tomahawk's WINGSPAN is less than 9 feet.

I'm no physicist, or structural engineer, but i DO know what makes logical sense when i see it.

And for you, or any other CT head say that the exit hole was caused by a missile, well it DOESN'T make logical sense.

smash

gatecrash wrote: »

And for you, or any other CT head say that the exit hole was caused by a missile, well it DOESN'T make logical sense.

Clearly you didn't look at the link properly.

cyrusdvirus

smash wrote: »

Clearly you didn't look at the link properly.

Oh please, do explain. I'm all ears.

--Kaiser--

smash wrote: »

The proof is there... http://imageshack.us/f/98/911b.jpg/

So you were expecting a plane shaped outline in the wall? Like in a cartoon?

smash

gatecrash wrote: »

Oh please, do explain. I'm all ears.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

So you were expecting a plane shaped outline in the wall? Like in a cartoon?

You guys are easier to wind up than any obsessive CT. Enlarge the the image and scroll.

alastair

smash wrote: »

Clearly you didn't look at the link properly.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced. Luckily I've been set straight by this compelling and comprehensive argument. Never mind the witnesses, the corpses of passengers, the bits of plane all over the place - it must have been a missile if the hole wasn't road-runner-style plane-shaped.

cyrusdvirus

smash wrote: »

You guys are easier to wind up than any obsessive CT. Enlarge the the image and scroll.

So in other words you can't explain anything. You are using what someone else said, and trying to pass the 'ideas' (a term i use VERY loosely in this context) as your own, and don't actually understand what you think you do.

Fair enough so.

smash

Honestly lads? I thought you were more intelligent than this. I just randomly grabbed a load of photos from google that would leave you scrolling a while and put a fkn trollface at the end!

Monty Burnz

gatecrash wrote: »

So in other words you can't explain anything. You are using what someone else said, and trying to pass the 'ideas' (a term i use VERY loosely in this context) as your own, and don't actually understand what you think you do.

Fair enough so.

The last picture has a plane with a big troll face at the front, I think that's what he's getting at.

Lord TSC

marco_polo wrote: »

The thing that is really confusing to me is why the US Government who were staging the whole thing would bother to aranging the hijacking of the superfluous fourth plane just so they could shoot it down. Wouldn't three have sufficed? :pac:

I don't believe that they flew all four planes, before I begin this. I do think extremists captured and flew the planes and all that.

But to me, the forth plane was a propaganda plane, and I guess this holds true for me and for others who might believe the entire thing was set up. The forth plane was used to create the illusion the American's got a small win amoung all the terrible losses that day. It was used in the media as a silver lining; "Yeah, they hurt us bad, but look at the heroes who saved te lives of many more people."

I've always thought they shot down that plane cause they knew it was going to head somewhere bad, but they knew it could be twisted to help people deal witht he disaster the day was.

cyrusdvirus

damn

bastard. (Doffs cap)

smash

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

But to me, the forth plane was a propaganda plane, and I guess this holds true for me and for others who might believe the entire thing was set up. The forth plane was used to create the illusion the American's got a small win amoung all the terrible losses that day. It was used in the media as a silver lining; "Yeah, they hurt us bad, but look at the heroes who saved te lives of many more people."

I've always thought they shot down that plane cause they knew it was going to head somewhere bad, but they knew it could be twisted to help people deal witht he disaster the day was.

you know they released the black box recording and all the telephone calls made from that plane right?

Keano!

Can someone just explain to me why building 7 was 'pulled' because there is official recordings of that lad (forgot his name) who owned the complex, ordering it be pulled laer that evning when there was practically no damage to it, while other buildings around it were in tatters, yet were left standing?

I think, not 100% sure, but I think I remember reading that the building contained all the security documents for the WTC's ...


Views? Just reeks of inside job foe me, the whole thing. From the fighter jets being miles away to the way in which the buildings fell

smash

Has anyone been watching "Rising - rebuilding ground zero" on discovery?

A lot of the guys that helped with the cleanup are now either dead or on their way out. Suffering with strange diseases and conditions etc. I'm not saying this is any form of conspiracy, it's obviously just from dealing with, inhaling and handling hazardous materials. Sad though.

Keano!

If you have a spare hour or so... staggering amount of detail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

alastair

Keano! wrote: »

Can someone just explain to me why building 7 was 'pulled' because there is official recordings of that lad (forgot his name) who owned the complex, ordering it be pulled laer that evning when there was practically no damage

It wasn't. The building was massively damaged, and there was no capacity to fight the fire that eventually brought the building down. No-one can 'order' the fire department to demolish a building, mainly because that's not what they do. They put out fires and get people out of buildings. The building fell for the bleeding obvious reasons.

cyrusdvirus

smash wrote: »

Has anyone been watching "Rising - rebuilding ground zero" on discovery?

A lot of the guys that helped with the cleanup are now either dead or on their way out. Suffering with strange diseases and conditions etc. I'm not saying this is any form of conspiracy, it's obviously just from dealing with, inhaling and handling hazardous materials. Sad though.

There was something on Channel 4 the other night. Remember the 2 french documentary makers who were following a Rookie firefighter around in the lead up to the attacks, they're the ones who filmed American 11 going into the North tower. Anyway they had a 10 year on thing. No one from that station was killed on the day of the attacks, despite them being the first unit on scene. 10 years later at least 2 of them are dead as a result of multiple cancers etc.

Keano!

Okay, then why do buildings which were infinite times worse manage to stay standing?

And the owner of the building can do what he wishes. He said to pull it and he's been on TV since saying he did.

As for damage, not a single impact was made on it, it was fine. Only damage possible was debris from the two towers which mysteriously fell in a perfect demolision manner.

humanji

Keano! wrote: »

If you have a spare hour or so... staggering amount of detail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

This is one of the many links that fairly rips Loose Change apart. It's a terrible "documentary" that has little use for the truth. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

alastair

Keano! wrote: »

Okay, then why do buildings which were infinite times worse manage to stay standing?

And the owner of the building can do what he wishes. He said to pull it and he's been on TV since saying he did.

As for damage, not a single impact was made on it, it was fine. Only damage possible was debris from the two towers which mysteriously fell in a perfect demolision manner.

You're pretty much wrong in everything you believe here - why not go off and educate yourself about the facts?

cyrusdvirus

Keano! wrote: »

Okay, then why do buildings which were infinite times worse manage to stay standing?

And the owner of the building can do what he wishes. He said to pull it and he's been on TV since saying he did.

As for damage, not a single impact was made on it, it was fine. Only damage possible was debris from the two towers which mysteriously fell in a perfect demolision manner.

Pull it = Pull the firefighters out, the building has already been evacuated, and there are 2 110 storey buildings burning right next door

Perfect demolition manner? Perfect demolition manner means within their own footprints. The towers fell all over the place.

Have a read of this.... http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Keano!

humanji wrote: »

This is one of the many links that fairly rips Loose Change apart. It's a terrible "documentary" that has little use for the truth. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

I've only started watching it now, haven't seen it all. I'm just saying what I feel myself so far, I'm sure there's some crazy assumptions in it, but in the end, it's all just too 'planned' for me.

Never forget sitting watching the TV, and then the towers fell in perfect columns, it was just eerie. Strange too that they were the first steel constructed buildings to fall due to 'heat damage' as was cited.

Keano!

alastair wrote: »

You're pretty much wrong in everything you believe here - why not go off and educate yourself about the facts?

or u could suck it up and respect others views. why not debate by giving your views, rather than dumbing down others. Pretty sad.

So I'll ignore your drivel by the looks of it.


No need to get childish. If you don't like what I believe, you don't have to get all emotional about it. I don't believe in the church and all the religious stuff, but never doubt anyone who does. Each to their own.

smash

Keano! wrote: »

Never forget sitting watching the TV, and then the towers fell in perfect columns, it was just eerie.

That's not how they fell... :rolleyes:

teol

Keano! wrote: »

I'm just saying what I feel myself so far

No you're not. You're repeating the lies from Alex Jones and Dylan Avery. Both of whom are completely ignorant.

alastair

Keano! wrote: »

If you don't like what I believe, you don't have to get all emotional about it. I don't believe in the church and all the religious stuff, but never doubt anyone who does. Each to their own.

ehh - religious belief is about faith on the unmeasurable. Your ignorance is just about an unwillingness to actually look at the measurable facts. And you'll have to take my word - I'm far from emotional about yet another ill-informed conspiracy 'theorist' - it's beyond boring at this stage.

Oh - that 'undamaged' building?: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

humanji

Keano! wrote: »

I've only started watching it now, haven't seen it all. I'm just saying what I feel myself so far, I'm sure there's some crazy assumptions in it, but in the end, it's all just too 'planned' for me.

Well keep in mind that even conspiracy theorists have said that Loose Change is a load of rubbish.

Never forget sitting watching the TV, and then the towers fell in perfect columns, it was just eerie. Strange too that they were the first steel constructed buildings to fall due to 'heat damage' as was cited.

All skyscrapers are designed to fall straight down. Otherwise they'd take out surrounding skyscrapers. And it didn't just collapse due to heat damage. There's the shock wave from the airline impact, which it wasn't designed to withstand, and the design of the towers themselves. The site http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm is a good resource and explains the collapse with all the facts and figures that you can verify yourself. It's fairly technical, but it can all be backed up.

Thor

Gunnar Calm Locket wrote: »

It would be rather difficult to fly into the bottom of the bulilding in a city full of, well full of tall buildings

Difficult yes, Impossible hell no!!!

It would difficult to get a plane upside down and still fly a fair distance before crashing, But that apparently happened aswell.

All I'm say is that if your intention is to take something down, You aim for the bottom, Or at least as close as you can get.

They didn't and aimed for the top and could have easily gotten closer to the bottom if they wanted too.