The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

Oh, you didn't got the argument?
Read the nonsense about the bouncing Satam Al Suqami passport and you might understand the wrong Flight 1771 argument.

Btw, 10° over vertical is much steeper than 10°. You should read first instead of trying to be the first one who replies some more nonsense.

Achimspok - I get what your saying; Its highly improbable that the passport survived the crash and explosion and landed where it did. It is more likely a plant, designed to publicly lead the investigation towards those they already knew would be responsible. It was never going to be used as evidence against anyone. It's possible. If this is not what you are saying, then please correct me.

However, you cannot prove this with the evidence you're presenting here. The skeptics you're debating will never change their minds about this. They are so closed to even the possibility that evidence could ever be planted, that it would take incontrovertable, not circumstantial, evidence for them to believe you.
 
Do you not realize that the fuel vaporized and exploded after the airplane entered the building? Now we just need to know how the fuel overcame the passport without leaving a droplet on it. And we need to know how the passport escaped the fast expanding fireball. And we need to know what descelerated the passport while the rest of the airplane headed further south....
Who is this "we" who need to know these things? Why should "we" need to know?
...or simply face the reality.
What reality - the reality that we don't know OR the reality that we will never know OR the reality that we don't need to know?
 
Last edited:
They are so closed to even the possibility that evidence could ever be planted, that it would take incontrovertable, not circumstantial, evidence for them to believe you.

Yes we would require actual evidence that evidence was planted to consider it. What horrible skeptics of us. :rolleyes:
 
For something to be possible does not require evidence. Plus, Archimspok has his evidence proving that it is highly improbable for one of the terrorists passports yo be found where it was.
 
This is why you don't understand 911, you don't understand reality. How is your delusion on demolition coming? How does 77 fit in your failed world of woo?

What about flight 93, another passport and some other papers survived.

Do you store your passport in a fuel tank? Your paranoid conspiracy theories meddle with reality. How many aircraft accidents have you investigated?

Why can't a passport survive? I have investigated accident where things survive. Why can't a low mass object survive? Why is 911 truth void of physics?

Use physics to show why a passport can't survive an impact of 11 or 175, 93, or 77. Go ahead, make your day, do some differential equations, prove it can't happen. Prove what I have witnessed many time, prove it can't happen.

BTW, the passports are not needed to prove who the terrorists were, they left a trail like dead people leave when they commit suicide and left their stuff behind. We have some of their DNA, your buddies you apologize for, we have some of their DNA; are you coming to collect it soon?

Got some math to go with you false claims and moronic delusions of what can't happen?

Use physics, Beachnut! Prove that a passport from AA11 can escape the impact of the cockpit and fly backwards to Vesey St!

They left a trail like dead people? False!
Each of them left a trail like 10 dead people. Most of them managed to be in several places at the same time.

You have some DNA. You don't know who left that DNA.

You have dead hijackers with the same name and birthday like living people.
Sometimes they even share the same face.

Like the living and the dead Waleed:
waleedconfession07twowa.jpg


Like the living and the dead Alomari:
2alomaris.png


They painted the letters on the visa applications like children who learn writing but they all share the same handwrinting (even with the official who wrote some notes on it).

visahandwriting.png


Therefore it doesn't matter how wrong these alleged hijackers filled in the applications. These failures are just as eye catching like correction fluid on the bouncing Satam passport.

On June 6, 2002, ABC World News Tonight broadcast an interview with Johnelle Bryant, former loan officer at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in South Florida, who told about her strange encounter with Mohamed Atta. This encounter took place “around the third week of April to the third week of May of 2000”, that is before Atta’s official entry date into the United States (see below). According to Ms. Bryant, Atta wanted to finance the purchase of a crop-duster. "He wanted to finance a twin-engine, six-passenger aircraft and remove the seats, " Bryant told ABC 's "World News Tonight. He insisted that she write his name as ATTA, that he originally was from Egypt but had actually moved to Afghanistan, that he was an engineer and that his dream was to go to a flight school. He asked about the Pentagon and the White House. He said he wanted to visit the World Trade Center and asked Ms. Bryant about the security there. He mentioned Al Qaeda and said the organisation “could use memberships from Americans”. He mentioned Osama bin Laden and said “this man would someday be known as the world 's greatest leader.” Ms. Bryant said “the picture that came out in the newspaper, that 's exactly what that man looked like.” [59] [60] Ms. Bryant contacted the authorities after recognising Atta in news reports. [61] Law-enforcement officials said Bryant passed a lie-detector exam. [62]

According to official reports, Atta arrived on June 3, 2000 at Newark International Airport from Prague.

Your alleged hijackers acted like elephans in a china store. They left any trail they had a chance to leave and they needed 3 bags on the last trip - two of it didn't made it on the plane - full of "evidence" of course - including the last will with advices how to handle the dead body.

Obviously the ISI payed Atta knew that his luggage won't make it on the plane. ;)

Get some math by your own, Beachnut!
Get a poop of logic, too!
The FAT fingerprints of intelligence are all over the plot and your so called evidence.
 
For something to be possible does not require evidence. Plus, Archimspok has his evidence proving that it is highly improbable for one of the terrorists passports yo be found where it was.
No evidence, he has delusions. Things can survive aircraft crashes, at any speed. FACT, proved by experience. Do you have delusions on 911 based on your failed opinions, like Archimspok?? Arch?


It is possible for a passport to survive. And it is impossible for 911 to be an inside job, since 19 terrorists did it, by surprise.
 
It is observable fact that the perimeter columns bowed inwards. Whether NIST's explanation is correct or not does not change the inwards bowing.

The inwards bowing contributed to failure - initial collapse. There is no need for the NIST explanation at that point.
right, I understand your stance on this but I'm not talking about after the bowing. I'm talking about what caused the bowing in the first place which has to do with demolition or not... and "sagging" has to do with what caused the bowing.
So, clarifying the objective, my two objectives have been (1) To answer "Demolition or not?" and (2) To explain the collapses to lay persons.

So in your opinion, is 9 feet of "sagging" in 17 minutes something that would logically happen here?
 
For something to be possible does not require evidence. Plus, Archimspok has his evidence proving that it is highly improbable for one of the terrorists passports yo be found where it was.

No he doesnt. He has assertions. Assertions that essentially a piece of paper can't end up near the building on the other side because it was traveling at 500mph with the plane going in the opposite direction.

Even though paper behaves very differently from say, a bowling ball, and could easily have been ejected out one side and fluttered around the building (you know, being a 1000ft in the air), being tossed around by wind and ended up in the street. Its a much simpler and more rational explanation then it was planted evidence to point to the terrorists. It could have been anyones passport. That wouldn't have changed a damn thing.
 
Use physics, Beachnut! Prove that a passport from AA11 can escape the impact of the cockpit and fly backwards to Vesey St!

...
Oops, the passport, it was found, that means what? I lost again, stuck in reality, having to pay bills and feed the fire.
You can apologize for your terrorist buddies, but this nonsensical post you made will not help. Pure junk. You debunk yourself with the same name stuff. Real dumb logic, your entire post is claptrap.

Your living terrorists stuff, pure stupid. Serious, you bring up luggage that did not make a flight? Have you never flown?

The terrorists left the DNA, and you can't refute it with evidence. Sorry, you are going on 10 years of failure, and I suspect you will be successful.

WOW, I found over a dozen John Lodge names on Skype - which one is the real one? How do you come up with the nonsense you use to building your fantasy you can't define or support with facts? What is your big picture? OH, you have the big inside job delusion of demolition, and more. The planted evidence, is a big lie only a few gullible people who can't do math and physics believe. Got the physics yet to prove a passport can't survive an aircraft crash? NO
 
Last edited:
Oops, the passport, it was found, that means what? I win.
You can apologize for your terrorist buddies, but this nonsensical post you made will not help. Pure junk. You debunk yourself with the same name stuff. Real dumb logic, your entire post is claptrap.

Your living terrorists stuff, pure stupid. Serious, you bring up luggage that did not make a flight? Have you never flown?

The terrorists left the DNA, and you can't refute it with evidence. Sorry, you are going on 10 years of failure, and I suspect you will be successful.

Oops, who found it? The CIA? I win.

Your DNA is already discussed. I guess it was Carlitos who explained to you why that so called DNA evidence wouldn't pass any US court. I win again.
 
Last edited:
For something to be possible does not require evidence. Plus, Archimspok has his evidence proving that it is highly improbable for one of the terrorists passports yo be found where it was.

Because something is possible does not mean it inherently should be entertained as occurring. What variables is he using to determine this probability?

Use physics, Beachnut! Prove that a passport from AA11 can escape the impact of the cockpit and fly backwards to Vesey St!

It did. So we have evidence it can. You're evidence for it being planted is because it was there and therefore it was planted. Burden of proof.

So in your opinion, is 9 feet of "sagging" in 17 minutes something that would logically happen here?

Nothing to do with logic, but what's physically possible.
 
Last edited:
portlandjumping.gif


Can you please explain the meaning of that huge jumping time stamp in the middle of the "surveillance" video? Who was sentenced for the damage of evidence?
 
Hopefully no one will notice I am changing the subject

For some reason I think someone will.

Hint: Achim, in your version of reality do people normally jump around like that? Call me crazy but i am going to go out on a limb and guess that the security camera take a picture every few seconds and then it time stamps that shot. Please don't breed.
 
Last edited:
right, I understand your stance on this but I'm not talking about after the bowing. I'm talking about what caused the bowing in the first place which has to do with demolition or not... and "sagging" has to do with what caused the bowing.

So in your opinion, is 9 feet of "sagging" in 17 minutes something that would logically happen here?

Given the area of a truss, and the fire temperature, one could calculate the heat transfer and time required to get it to that temperature.
 
right, I understand your stance on this but I'm not talking about after the bowing. I'm talking about what caused the bowing in the first place which has to do with demolition or not... and "sagging" has to do with what caused the bowing....
Demolition is disproved by multiple other paths of logic. The focus on implausible sagging is a standard truther ploy to force the discussion to focus on only one technical aspect which cannot be proven THEN (making two unwarranted quantum leaps in logic) to claim demolition proven. The arguments in the logistic and security domains are as conclusive as you will get for "no demolition" leaving aside all the technical evidence against it. Without going through all the possibilities it is not my burden of proof to show what pulled the columns inwards. I have no problem with one explanation - that sagging trusses started it and eccentric loading of the thus bent columns took it further. I'm not even sure that the amount of sagging is excessive for a failed floor joist.
...So in your opinion, is 9 feet of "sagging" in 17 minutes something that would logically happen here?
Dunno strong enough to assert "it must be so". Haven't even read much of the debate on the topic. I do recall that some of the attempted rebuttals of the sagged joists were flawed arguments. Cannot remember why.
 

Back
Top Bottom