Was 911 an Inside Job

Was 911 an Inside Job

Created by inquiring minds on Jan 4, 2013

17,795 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES

No

Don't know

Possibly

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#2598 Mar 4, 2013
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001.... AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHA

of course the crashes were recorded by video cameras and witnessed by thousnads of people .... but it's only 'alleged ??

what sort of retard comes up with this shit and what sort of retard copies and pastes it ??
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft.
.
On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.
.
The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.
.
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged.
.
Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious, but small hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged.
.
Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but to date no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s alleged version of what actually caused the total destruction of the WTC buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft.
.
It will soon be more than ten years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites,
.
(a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.)
.
The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written.
.
http://physics911.net/georgenelson/
.
Not that it matters to anyone choosing to believe the govie version of this 9/11 Wag The Dog, False Flag Black Op For Political Gain, undertaken by TPTB.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha hah ah ha ha a h
.
That's A Good One Huh Eh !
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#2599 Mar 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged.
Except for all those eyewitnesses in broad daylight during rush hour that saw it hit, many right down to the AA marking.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#2600 Mar 4, 2013
go eat another Scooter Pie you disgusting Fat Slob
INTOBEASTED YOUR ASS 2013 wrote:
<quoted text>
You were no where near the WTC but to read your dumbass post you are mesmerizing your own psyche into hallucinating that you have all the answers.
You don't.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#2601 Mar 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
If you can not refute the evidence, dismiss the source, then use Ad Hominem attacks and
ridicule the poster presenting the information, and call it good.
OK, Let have the evidence so we can follow your rules, who were those 20 pilots again that determine it would be nearly implausible to hit the WTC and how did they determine this?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2602 Mar 4, 2013
The omniscient and omnipotent "The Powers That Be" (names to be determined later) are more than capable of doing anything we can possibly imagine. Those of us who refuse to accept this are simply blind to this truth. TPTB can make the seriously to completely impossible happen in plain sight, without detection, except by those who live in complete and total fear of what our evil masters are capable of.

The Powers That Be can make passenger airliners simply vanish and replace them with remote controlled aircraft and/or cleverly disguised missiles if they needed to and since we all know what was said to have happened couldn't happen, they needed to. TPTB said let there be and it was done.

It's all about the oil.
Amen.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#2603 Mar 4, 2013
you better never fly with those guys since the WTC was wider then most runways
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, Let have the evidence so we can follow your rules, who were those 20 pilots again that determine it would be nearly implausible to hit the WTC and how did they determine this?

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#2604 Mar 4, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for all those eyewitnesses in broad daylight during rush hour that saw it hit, many right down to the AA marking.
Look, up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, yes I think it's a plane, its American Airlines Flight 77 !?!?!?!?
.
Coming to crash into the Pentagon Uh Huh Eh !
.
That's pretty funny doncha think?

Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#2605 Mar 4, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
you better never fly with those guys since the WTC was wider then most runways<quoted text>
Yea, I think they were the famous "Turnwecantdo Arimen"

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#2606 Mar 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
25 Rules of Disinformation
.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
.
"We demand to see a video of the plane at the Pentagon!"
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better whether or not the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
"Google Operation Northwoods!"
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.
.
If you can not refute the evidence, dismiss the source, then use Ad Hominem attacks and
ridicule the poster presenting the information, and call it good.
.
"Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha h
.
That’s A Good One Huh Eh !"
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Sound familiar ?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha h
.
That’s A Good One Huh Eh !
Yes it does oh elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots glop!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#2607 Mar 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, yes I think it's a plane, its American Airlines Flight 77 !?!?!?!?
.
Coming to crash into the Pentagon Uh Huh Eh !
.
That's pretty funny doncha think?
"18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”."

Hahahahahahaha!!!!

Now THAT'S funny!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#2608 Mar 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
That's pretty funny doncha think?
That everyone saw a commercial airlines and no one saw a global hawk so in twooferville it had to be a global hawk, yea, that is funny.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#2609 Mar 4, 2013
INTOBEASTED YOUR ASS 2013 wrote:
<quoted text>You were no where near the WTC but to read your dumbass post you are mesmerizing your own psyche into hallucinating that you have all the answers.

You don't.
Was one of your many personalities there VVV?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#2610 Mar 4, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
<quoted text>The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001.... AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHA

of course the crashes were recorded by video cameras and witnessed by thousnads of people .... but it's only 'alleged ??

what sort of retard comes up with this shit and what sort of retard copies and pastes it ??
Yes but twoofers dismiss and ridicule that information...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2611 Mar 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Nevertheless no pieces of the any of the 9/11 planes were ever forensically identified back to their extensive maintenance records.
.
And your response will be "so what?"
.
If the planes were tracked all the way, why were none of them ever intercepted by defensive forces?
.
There was plenty of time to do so if that was what NORAD wanted to do.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ah h
.
That's Really Funny Huh eh !
That's like saying lets's go to the beach and search for gold even though no gold is know to exist on the beach.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2612 Mar 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
25 Rules of Disinformation
.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better whether or not the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.
.
If you can not refute the evidence, dismiss the source, then use Ad Hominem attacks and
ridicule the poster presenting the information, and call it good.
.
Sound familiar ?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha h
.
That’s A Good One Huh Eh !
Exactly. That's right out of the Twoofer Playbook for sure.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#2613 Mar 4, 2013
Look up in the sky. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's an American Airlines Global Hawk fooling the eyewitnesses who thought it was a 757.
Charlie Sheen

Matthews, NC

#2614 Mar 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Look up in the sky. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's an American Airlines Global Hawk fooling the eyewitnesses who thought it was a 757.
LOL, Yea, No one noticed the huge side difference and they actually put passengers and windows in the global hawk!

31. FLYLER, KIM
"I pulled into the Pentagon parking lot and was trying to sneak into a spot closer to the Building because I was pregnant. The security guard saw I was pregnant, so he was being nice and he was chatting with me. At that moment I heard a Plane and then a loud cracking noise. We both looked up into the sky and it hit the Building at that instant. It was so loud it still echoes in my head when I think about it.
"Right before the Plane hit the Building, you could see the Silhouettes of people in the back two windows. You couldn't see if they were Male or Female, but you could tell there was a Human Being in there."
"Pain, fear and disbelief," by Vikki Miller, Dee O'Connell, Jason Burke, Dominic Nutt, The Observer, 9/8/02
Charlie Sheen

Matthews, NC

#2615 Mar 4, 2013
huge SIZE difference

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2616 Mar 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Look up in the sky. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's an American Airlines Global Hawk fooling the eyewitnesses who thought it was a 757.
Twoofer nonsense. Where did the planes which were on the radar go? How did another plane fly into the same airspace undetected?

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#2617 Mar 4, 2013
Are eyewitnesses reliable?

They are mistaken far more often than people think.
.
Every year, more than 75,000 eyewitnesses identify criminal suspects in the U.S., and studies suggest that as many as a third of them are wrong.
.
Mistaken eyewitnesses helped convict three quarters of the 273 people who have been freed from U.S. prisons on DNA evidence presented by the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal organization that challenges dubious prosecutions.
.
After a comprehensive two-year study of eyewitness testimony, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that it often leads to false identifications, and recently ordered new rules on how such testimony is treated in the courtroom.
.
Other states are moving in the same direction, and this week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that may result in the first federal clarification on the use of eyewitnesses in 34 years.
.
Why are so many eyewitnesses mistaken?
.
Human memory is fragile and malleable.
.
More than 2,000 studies on eyewitnesses in recent decades have determined that recollections are prone to decay, distortion, and suggestion.
.
Honest, well-meaning people often simply misremember or misreport what they have seen.
.
In one 1974 experiment, for example, more than two thousand people were shown a 13-second video clip of a mugging, followed by a six-man lineup. Just 14 percent of viewers correctly identified the perpetrator — a success rate lower than that of random guessing.
.
In a 1999 study, 150 college students watched videos of a shooting and then of a five-man lineup. Every one of them identified a suspect, even though the culprit was not pictured.
.
Factors such as fear, poor lighting, the presence of a weapon during a crime, and the passage of time have all been shown to cause mistakes in identifications — even when the witness is the victim of the crime.
.
Witnesses are particularly inaccurate, studies show, when asked to remember the facial features of someone of a different race.
.
Conclusion:
.
So-called eyewitnesses are unreliable.
.
http://theweek.com/article/index/221008/is-ey...
.
Especially any of the FDNY who say they saw and heard explosions before and after the planes allegedly crashed into the WTC 1 & 2. These guys are flat out lying.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha haha ha h
.
That's Too Funny Huh Eh !

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is God a "Bully" sometimes? 3 min Doctor REALITY 58
4 word game (use same Letter) (Mar '13) 5 min quilterqueen 1,506
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 8 min Unsolved Mistery 53,378
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min Unsolved Mistery 992,495
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min Unsolved Mistery 693,594
Got my ex pregnant before break up. What do I do? 2 hr onemale1 3
Last Post Wins !!! [ game time :) ] (Jan '11) 3 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,483
More from around the web