Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
TheTool

The Truth Behind 9/11

Recommended Posts

i turned tv over after 15 min knowing no serious investicative journalisim was going to be shown. it fell way short of askin why wt7 colapsed in its own footprints from a non perfect spred fire we have a perfect colapse . it never shown silverstien the owner saying he pulled the building. and in the 7 hours from the first tower colapse wtc7 could not have been primed to a controled demo unless it was primed in advance . its been 5 years since i payed cash 4 a jewspaper i will never pay for false info. bbc is a goverment tv station that tryed to back up the usa goverments take on 911 and failed in my opinion

 

blairs first words as to 77 was there will be no inquiry why? if theres nowt to hide i guess all the peoples storys and the days timeline would tell a difrent story

 

Drugs are bad...mmkay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still looking for this one piece of confirmed evidence chaps.

 

With the thousands of people implicated in such a conspiracy, not one credible source with evidence has come forward. Does that not appear.... strange to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ans its obvious you are a payed pr thing is 5 years back i felt uncomfortabal talkin bout 911 being one of a few disbelivers. now it seems the worm is turning hence the bb c sham

 

I would suggest Mr. Smith's blatant and offensive bias in producing this sham documentary comes as a result of his zeal to maintain his perch in the media establishment peanut gallery and on the BBC gravy train. Maybe it's Mr. Smith's fear that because of journalistic cowardice in tackling the weapons of mass destruction farce, he realizes his role in the media is under threat – because people don't trust the mainstream any more and are increasingly turning to the alternative press in search of truth.

 

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/bb..._flaws_bias.htm

 

smith trys to defend the documentry on the alex jones show in above link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know some of those words, but I'm unfamiliar with the others. Is this some sort of code?

 

Edit: Hey guys, where's your ONE piece of evidence? Come on, you must have one, right? Just one? In 5 1/2 years? No? Bugger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the people spouting the conspiracy theories is that they all sound so ludicrous and borderline nut jobs (see above posts by way of example) that any sense of what they are trying to say gets buried. At the end of the day sometime the most obvious answer is the answer. That said there is an element of smoke and mirrors purveyed by the American authorities and some unanswered questions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know some of those words, but I'm unfamiliar with the others. Is this some sort of code?

 

Edit: Hey guys, where's your ONE piece of evidence? Come on, you must have one, right? Just one? In 5 1/2 years? No? Bugger.

 

- mobile phones working at 30000ft at 500 mph

- a pilot supposedly so poor as to be barely able to fly a cessna with an unverified commercial pilot's licence flying a boeing into the pentagon like it was an f-16

- numerous acts of identity theft which aimed to implicate various members of the hijacking teams in murky travel which conflict with other eyewitness accounts

- no recorded signs of struggle on cockpit voice recorders to actually identify the moment of take-over

- how come nearly 1,000 intercepts of 'rogue' aircraft across the US had occurred in the previous 24 months all done textbook style (google payne stewart for a high profile example)

- answer cui bono?

- the supposed differing transcripts on flight 93. Relatives were played a different version to that released by the commission

- silverstein's 'gaffe' regarding wtc7. Had it been a simple suspected arson case, I think the cops would have been speaking with him about that.

- wreckage spread in 93. surely not a conventional crash by any means.

 

a couple but by no means even touching the surface...

 

even over forty years later, new evidence comes to light about JFK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6378463.stm

so I don't feel your 5.5 year cutoff holds much water

 

of course, the answer to all these is just fluke, chance, evil, whatever, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know some of those words, but I'm unfamiliar with the others. Is this some sort of code?

 

Edit: Hey guys, where's your ONE piece of evidence? Come on, you must have one, right? Just one? In 5 1/2 years? No? Bugger.

 

Ah, you must be one of them there coincidence theorists then.... Those folk who have all the answers?? If as you obviously think all the answers are out in the public domain why not have a full & frank public enquiry? TBH I'd still like to hear how they made the 757/737 that 'hit' Pentagon disappear!

 

blue5.jpg

 

What no luggage? Seats? Bodies? Engines? Tail? WINGS!? Oh look the roof is still on

 

Did we really expect anything different from the BBC? Mouthpiece of the NuLab & all that! The same old BBC that reliably informed us there are/were WMD's in Iraq….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but....

 

 

Mobile phones work perfectly at altitude. Really, they do. Try it next time you are on a flight. No really, do.

 

Flying a large airliner such as a 757 is actually alot easier than flying a Cessna or any other light aircraft, the level of automation is vast. As for saying 'why did it only damage the surface?', well, it did alot more.

 

'The 757-200 caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project. ' (Which had been going on since 93')

 

Cockpit voice recordings - Yes there was. Go listen yourself.

 

Intercepts of rogue aircraft are based of enemy, usually Soviet plans to launch a pre-emptive strike. This means the west coast has most of the fighter cover. The military didn't know much about what was happening. Go listen to the NORAD tapes, they were released last year.

 

---

 

Anyway, I'm bored of debunking you, and I'm going to do something better. I've answered your 'statements', if you've still got any problems, I suggest taking A-levels, or a further education course in something. Obviously, you aren't intelligent enough to actually give us 'facts', as we asked for.

 

I bet when you talk and put an upward inflection?... on the end of every sentence?... like everything is a question?

 

Cheers

 

Tarne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie B - god this thread is so long the Newbies are just repeating themselves - you'll find I posted this link about a mile back - keep up boy and read the thread before fagging it up with more crap.

 

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supposedly

aimed to implicate

supposed differing

'gaffe'

surely not

 

Wow, you sure sold me with those cast iron bits of fact speculation. Even when challenged you have to use all these vague words to surround your evidence because there are no cast iron bits of evidence.

 

Where is the document? The floppy disc? The recorded confessions? The video evidence? The ANYTHING that is something tangible and physical that lends any credence to this? Show me something I can hold in my hand that provides irrefuteable evidence!

 

Up yer own arses, that's where it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charlie B - god this thread is so long the Newbies are just repeating themselves - you'll find I posted this link about a mile back - keep up boy and read the thread before fagging it up with more crap.

Fagging? OMG! - Is MF run from King Bills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charlie B - god this thread is so long the Newbies are just repeating themselves - you'll find I posted this link about a mile back - keep up boy and read the thread before fagging it up with more crap.

 

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

 

Oh Jeez... talking of crap I see you linked to rense.com.. what after the lenghty 'in depth' discussion that's best you can offer??

 

the facts speak for themselves (you don't have to read the following if you don't want)

 

Boeing 757:

 

tail height = 44ft 6in (13.6) - Wing span = 124ft 10in (38.5) - Aircraft length 178ft 7in (54.5m)

 

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html

 

Pentagon:

 

Height of building: 77 ft 3.5 in (24 m)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon

 

You are telling me a plane that size fitted into that hole?? Pure fantasy mate! As a self-confessed aircraft nerd (& holder of a PPL) The piloting skill itself is remarkable to say the least! So I suggest you do a little light reading pal! Aircraft construction might be a good place to start.

 

Excuse me I won't fag up your thread any futher

Edited by CharlieB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supposedly

aimed to implicate

supposed differing

'gaffe'

surely not

 

Wow, you sure sold me with those cast iron bits of fact speculation. Even when challenged you have to use all these vague words to surround your evidence because there are no cast iron bits of evidence.

 

Where is the document? The floppy disc? The recorded confessions? The video evidence? The ANYTHING that is something tangible and physical that lends any credence to this? Show me something I can hold in my hand that provides irrefuteable evidence!

 

Up yer own arses, that's where it is.

look love, stick to your modding and leave the internet hardman act out. Did any of your ancestors happen to go round telling people the earth was flat? err OK- one piece then- wreckage is found from united 93 miles away while the official story says it flew straight into the ground. Why do you need a confession, video evidence etc to convict someone- it doesn't happen that way necessarily in real life so why apply that standard for this. If a story doesn't stack up then there's a moral duty to investigate it imo.

Edited by haX0red_Account

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...