The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

NoahFence said:
Doing nothing but typing your opinions for the next 100 years, you will still never be able to come close to being as wrong as you are about that.

You honestly need to do HONEST research.

MILLIONS of people saw this happen. Thousands upon thousands were there in NYC, when it happened, and saw it happen. You are wrong.
Click to expand...
millions of people did not see the north tower hit live on tv, because it was not shown until the next day. why was there only that ONE video of the north tower hit if there were millions of people in new york, which would mean many cameras.
why are there witnesses who claim to have seen an explosion in the north tower and not a plane hit it, jennifer oberstein for one?
why was it necessary to plant fake witnesses who have been identified as actors- gary welz, and mark humphrey, who was interviewed on fox news. fox news, by the way, is owned by media mogul and zionist rupert murdoch, who was recently labelled on tv station channel 4, here in the UK, as beyond evil.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzPIde6Wj3w
HONESTLY
 
silver birch said:
millions of people did not see the north tower hit live on tv, because it was not shown until the next day.
Click to expand...

Totally wrong. Blatantly wrong, knowingly WRONG.

why was there only that ONE video of the north tower hit if there were millions of people in new york, which would mean many cameras.
Click to expand...

The first one that was hit (North Tower) wasn't filmed because immediately prior to impact, there was nothing special about that day.

why are there witnesses who claim to have seen an explosion in the north tower and not a plane hit it, jennifer oberstein for one?
Click to expand...

Link? Source? No? LIE.
Jennifer who?

why was it necessary to plant fake witnesses who have been identified as actors- gary welz, and mark humphrey, who was interviewed on fox news. fox news, by the way, is owned by media mogul and zionist rupert murdoch, who was recently labelled on tv station channel 4, here in the UK, as beyond evil.
Click to expand...

Lie.



Holy Crap. What is it you're really after? Why pile lie upon lie? What are you getting out of this?
 
NoahFence said:
You need to think.

Like, HONESTLY. Use your head, research WHY would a hijacker have a passport for an internal flight?

atta's passport was shown as evidence at the 9/11 commission that he was piloting the plane.
so you agree with me, it was false planted evidence.
Click to expand...
 
silver birch said:
NoahFence said:
You need to think.

Like, HONESTLY. Use your head, research WHY would a hijacker have a passport for an internal flight?

atta's passport was shown as evidence at the 9/11 commission that he was piloting the plane.
so you agree with me, it was false planted evidence.
Click to expand...

I asked you a question, you repeat the question, and fail to answer it.

Yes or No -

DO YOU NEED ME TO TELL YOU WHY THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR PASSPORTS?
Click to expand...
 
silver birch said:
millions of people did not see the north tower hit live on tv, because it was not shown until the next day. why was there only that ONE video of the north tower hit if there were millions of people in new york, which would mean many cameras.
why are there witnesses who claim to have seen an explosion in the north tower and not a plane hit it, jennifer oberstein for one?
why was it necessary to plant fake witnesses who have been identified as actors- gary welz, and mark humphrey, who was interviewed on fox news. fox news, by the way, is owned by media mogul and zionist rupert murdoch, who was recently labelled on tv station channel 4, here in the UK, as beyond evil.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzPIde6Wj3w
HONESTLY
Click to expand...

First, we all have noticed how you totally do not acknowledge that your previous incompetent utterings about the parameters of planes and buildings colliding have been torn to pieces and that you have been schooled on many things you do not understand at all.

But I'll let that running away from your own arguments pass again, and go with this newly repositioned goal post.

jennifer oberstein did not hear a plane? Well, here is a video of the first impact. You can't see the explosion, but you can hear it.
And you can hear, in the seconds just before the explosion, what?

"Sounded like a plane crash!"
 
silver birch said:
NoahFence said:
You need to think.

Like, HONESTLY. Use your head, research WHY would a hijacker have a passport for an internal flight?

atta's passport was shown as evidence at the 9/11 commission that he was piloting the plane.
so you agree with me, it was false planted evidence.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been abroad?
Why would you part with your passport when abroad - ever? I always have a passport on me when I enter any travel vehicle abroad. Always.
Click to expand...
 
silver birch said:
whether he needed it or not, it certainly could not have been fire proof, I'll leave it at that
Click to expand...

According to your logic, no personal effects could have been recovered from the Challenger disaster either. We know this is not true, though.
 
Travis said:
Several things wrong here: the box girders were not 2 inches thick and the buildings were not built to survive such a thing.

And that 18 inch gap. What do you think would happen to the bits of the plane that would hit that gap?



150 tons traveling at such speeds is still a hell of a lot of force. And force is all you need. That's how they cut steel with water.



Not finding the flight recorders is not odd to me at all. Considering the violent disassembly of the planes as they impacted I would be shocked that any bit of the recorders larger than a postage stamp would be found.

And the engine found on the ground was not a 737 engine. If you think it was please provide the evidence.
Click to expand...
in this video it shows the engine, and retired boeing design engineer Joseph Kieth calls it a 737 engine
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahS9wLpScCE&feature=channel_video_title
 
Last edited:
silver birch said:
whether he needed it or not, it certainly could not have been fire proof, I'll leave it at that
Click to expand...

Well then, it's a damn good thing the one they found didn't come in contact with fire.
~~

Since you need your hand held, I'll tell you why they had them - for the exact reason Oystein said.

You carry your passport around when you're abroad. That's what you do. It's used for identification. It's unlikely they would have been able to board the plane without it. I'm terribly, terribly sorry that there's not a sinister answer to the question. I know it's mundane to have to produce ID. That's not my problem. That's yours.
 
Last edited:
silver birch said:
atta's passport was shown as evidence at the 9/11 commission that he was piloting the plane.
so you agree with me, it was false planted evidence.
Click to expand...

Not Atta's but Satam al-Suqami. So again, lying or mistaken? Maybe you should take the time to learn the basic facts concerning the events of the day before you begin spinning your fanciful webs.
 
silver birch said:
in this video it shows the engine, and retired boeing design engineer Joseph Kieth calls it a 737 engine
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahS9wLpScCE&feature=channel_video_title
Click to expand...

That video is one big glaring bag of fail.

This Joe Keith?
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/joe-s-law-by-joseph-keith
For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe’s Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Quote:
For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe’s Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

Do I even want to know what 'Joe's Law' is?
 
silver birch said:
whether he needed it or not, it certainly could not have been fire proof, I'll leave it at that
Click to expand...

Can you ever stick with your own proposals?!? Or is it absolutely compulsory to always move goal posts the moment you are shown your premises are wrong? Man, that's no way to debate!

You asked "Like, HONESTLY. Use your head, research WHY would a hijacker have a passport for an internal flight?", as if Atta having a passport aboard was in any way suspicious.

No, don't leave it at that! Make a claim! State why YOU think Atta carrying a passport is suspicious! Make your case, or admit that the question you LOADED with upper-cased emotive words was just a red herringm, and retract it. HONESTLY!
 
NoahFence said:
:jaw-dropp

Do I even want to know what 'Joe's Law' is?
Click to expand...

Pure comedy, is what it is:

Joe’s Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe’s Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe’s Law states: “AIRPLANES DON’T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!”
Click to expand...

Joe is nothing more than retired software engineer. Funny that he alone at Boeing is claiming that to be a 737 engine and not...you know...someone qualified to make that statement?
 
Last edited:
You asked "Like, HONESTLY. Use your head, research WHY would a hijacker have a passport for an internal flight?", as if Atta having a passport aboard was in any way suspicious.
Click to expand...

Actually in all the quotes confusion... I asked him that question that's bolded. Basically begging him to use his brain.

He was questioning why they even had their passports for a domestic flight.

No, don't leave it at that! Make a claim! State why YOU think Atta carrying a passport is suspicious! Make your case, or admit that the question you LOADED with upper-cased emotive words was just a red herringm, and retract it. HONESTLY!
Click to expand...

That's the answer I was trying to get him to say. He won't though.
 
Oh ^^ Well then using the quote function must be added to the list of things silver-birch doesn't understand ;)

I could as well have quoted this:
silver birch said:
so do passports, even hijackers ones, (which he would not have needed on an internal flight anyway)
Click to expand...
Where he does make the claim that passports are not needed.
Does he imply carrying one is suspicious? Or would he admit he'd be better off scratching that parenthesis?
 
So let me get this straight--because of some child-like understanding of the way buildings and planes are constructed and how mass reacts to collisions and suspicion about a passport, an event that was witnessed by thousands personally and recorded by video and images from almost every imaginable angle never happened?

Seriously? That's just what we need--another ignorant no planer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom