Do you belive 9/11 was a inside job?

[QUOTE="Dasacant"][QUOTE="mastershakez"]

It really is. People will believe whatever makes them feel the safest, no matter what common sense suggests.

mastershakez

It was a generalised statement, not specifically pertaining the to topic at hand. I've already stated in this thread that I will not be arguing over this topic. Believe whatever you want, and I will do the same.

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

Firmly believe that it was an inside job, there are too many anomalies;

- CCTV footage from outside the Pentagon was taken and it's never been released since

- Flight 93 crash site lacked ANY wreckage

- Building 7 was clearly pulled by explosives;

- The Pentagon completely lacked ANY wreckage and the damage shown was impossible due to the wing size of the plane itself

- The towers fell at near free fall speed, that's impossible due to the floors below.

- The President himself said that he saw the first plane go into the tower live on tv...impossible since it live footage never shown until AFTER it hit.

Dasacant

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

Firmly believe that it was an inside job, there are too many anomalies;

- CCTV footage from outside the Pentagon was taken and it's never been released since

- Flight 93 crash site lacked ANY wreckage

- Building 7 was clearly pulled by explosives;

- The Pentagon completely lacked ANY wreckage and the damage shown was impossible due to the wing size of the plane itself

- The towers fell at near free fall speed, that's impossible due to the floors below.

- The President himself said that he saw the first plane go into the tower live on tv...impossible since it live footage never shown until AFTER it hit.

Dasacant

i cant beleive over 150 ppl dont beleive it was an inside job...there is enough evidence showing it was all planned and done by the government. how can ppl be so naive and just beleive and trust their government so easily?

[QUOTE="Dasacant"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

Firmly believe that it was an inside job, there are too many anomalies;

- CCTV footage from outside the Pentagon was taken and it's never been released since

- Flight 93 crash site lacked ANY wreckage

- Building 7 was clearly pulled by explosives;

- The Pentagon completely lacked ANY wreckage and the damage shown was impossible due to the wing size of the plane itself

- The towers fell at near free fall speed, that's impossible due to the floors below.

- The President himself said that he saw the first plane go into the tower live on tv...impossible since it live footage never shown until AFTER it hit.

MushroomWig

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

Looking at the facts.

Does anyone think that after the planes hit the buildings and the buildings came down into dust that they found a intact ID card from one of the highjackers. who is alive and well in another country on camera with the same face. Somehow got through the airports with boxcutters and hit the most secured building in the world? They could find his ID laying the rubble of New York, but couldn't find the black box for the plane? They could match DNA samples from the chaos but find a ID card and still couldn't find the black box? Thats what they said.That isn't even 98% of it, read the report.

The evidence points to absolute 100% distortion of the truth. I'm not saying the US government was behind it, as I think it is a classic staged false flag operation performed by an expert group.

Dasacant

How about you read the commission report?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

"A saudi man has reported to authorities that he is a real Abdual Aziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Al-Omari says he informed police of the theft". ABCnews

"I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." telegraph (issued 23rd September 2001)

"Al-Omari has since been found in Saudi Arabia and is apparently cleared in the case" New York Times

I have a lot more sources and dates issued if you want them.

[QUOTE="Dasacant"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

Firmly believe that it was an inside job, there are too many anomalies;

- CCTV footage from outside the Pentagon was taken and it's never been released since

- Flight 93 crash site lacked ANY wreckage

- Building 7 was clearly pulled by explosives;

- The Pentagon completely lacked ANY wreckage and the damage shown was impossible due to the wing size of the plane itself

- The towers fell at near free fall speed, that's impossible due to the floors below.

- The President himself said that he saw the first plane go into the tower live on tv...impossible since it live footage never shown until AFTER it hit.

racer8dan

Also, there are several obvious things. For example, towers falling at freefall speed? That doesn't explain the cloud of dust that fell faster than the building, or the bits of rubble that fell faster than the cloud of dust? Guess they must've fallen faster than freefall. Also, freefall is an acceleration, not a spee.

There was actually a great deal of wreckage at both those sites, and I can pull up pictures. Also, at the Pentagon, there were tons of witnesses who saw a **** plane hit the building.

i cant beleive over 150 ppl dont beleive it was an inside job...there is enough evidence showing it was all planned and done by the government. how can ppl be so naive and just beleive and trust their government so easily?

planbfreak4eva

2. Take a guess how many witnesses there were at the Pentagon who saw a plane hit the building, and not a missile?PannicAtack

[QUOTE="Dasacant"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

Firmly believe that it was an inside job, there are too many anomalies;

- CCTV footage from outside the Pentagon was taken and it's never been released since

- Flight 93 crash site lacked ANY wreckage

- Building 7 was clearly pulled by explosives;

- The Pentagon completely lacked ANY wreckage and the damage shown was impossible due to the wing size of the plane itself

- The towers fell at near free fall speed, that's impossible due to the floors below.

- The President himself said that he saw the first plane go into the tower live on tv...impossible since it live footage never shown until AFTER it hit.

racer8dan

[QUOTE="Dasacant"][QUOTE="jamesgj"]

Looking at the facts.

Does anyone think that after the planes hit the buildings and the buildings came down into dust that they found a intact ID card from one of the highjackers. who is alive and well in another country on camera with the same face. Somehow got through the airports with boxcutters and hit the most secured building in the world? They could find his ID laying the rubble of New York, but couldn't find the black box for the plane? They could match DNA samples from the chaos but find a ID card and still couldn't find the black box? Thats what they said.That isn't even 98% of it, read the report.

The evidence points to absolute 100% distortion of the truth. I'm not saying the US government was behind it, as I think it is a classic staged false flag operation performed by an expert group.

jamesgj

How about you read the commission report?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

"A saudi man has reported to authorities that he is a real Abdual Aziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Al-Omari says he informed police of the theft". ABCnews

"I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." telegraph (issued 23rd September 2001)

"Al-Omari has since been found in Saudi Arabia and is apparently cleared in the case" New York Times

I have a lot more sources and dates issued if you want them.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]2. Take a guess how many witnesses there were at the Pentagon who saw a plane hit the building, and not a missile?MushroomWig

there were tons of witnesses who saw a **** plane hit the building.

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]2. Take a guess how many witnesses there were at the Pentagon who saw a plane hit the building, and not a missile?MushroomWig

And that's from a truther website.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]2. Take a guess how many witnesses there were at the Pentagon who saw a plane hit the building, and not a missile?MushroomWig

Because it would be impossible for the United States government to simply get people to lie. :']

MushroomWig

No. 9/11 was done by a bunch of pissed off Muslims.scorch-62

Yeah, they killed our men and got us involved in illegal wars based of lies when none of the highjackers we're even from Iraq in 911. Than they decided to attack the most secured buildings in the world, by using box cutters leaving bags of evidence in the airports. Yeah sounds like a bunch of people just "hated" are freedom so much they decided to leave planeted evidence everywhere to prove they did it for there virgins.

As Bush always puts it paraquote "911,911,911 thats why, 911"

the highjackers we're even from Iraq in 911.

jamesgj

[QUOTE="Dasacant"][QUOTE="jamesgj"]

Looking at the facts.

Does anyone think that after the planes hit the buildings and the buildings came down into dust that they found a intact ID card from one of the highjackers. who is alive and well in another country on camera with the same face. Somehow got through the airports with boxcutters and hit the most secured building in the world? They could find his ID laying the rubble of New York, but couldn't find the black box for the plane? They could match DNA samples from the chaos but find a ID card and still couldn't find the black box? Thats what they said.That isn't even 98% of it, read the report.

The evidence points to absolute 100% distortion of the truth. I'm not saying the US government was behind it, as I think it is a classic staged false flag operation performed by an expert group.

jamesgj

How about you read the commission report?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

"A saudi man has reported to authorities that he is a real Abdual Aziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Al-Omari says he informed police of the theft". ABCnews

"I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." telegraph (issued 23rd September 2001)

"Al-Omari has since been found in Saudi Arabia and is apparently cleared in the case" New York Times

I have a lot more sources and dates issued if you want them.

Debunked by experts, using real science, real evidence and journalists who actually did some research. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]there were tons of witnesses who saw a **** plane hit the building.

MushroomWig

Yeah, they killed our men and got us involved in illegal wars based of lies when none of the highjackers we're even from Iraq in 911. Than they decided to attack the most secured buildings in the world, by using box cutters leaving bags of evidence in the airports. Yeah sounds like a bunch of people just "hated" are freedom so much they decided to leave planeted evidence everywhere to prove they did it for there virgins.

As Bush always puts it paraquote "911,911,911 thats why, 911"

jamesgj

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="Dasacant"] Apart from the president one, which is completely irrelevant, every single one of those claims has been debunked.PannicAtack

Also, there are several obvious things. For example, towers falling at freefall speed? That doesn't explain the cloud of dust that fell faster than the building, or the bits of rubble that fell faster than the cloud of dust? Guess they must've fallen faster than freefall. Also, freefall is an acceleration, not a spee.

There was actually a great deal of wreckage at both those sites, and I can pull up pictures. Also, at the Pentagon, there were tons of witnesses who saw a **** plane hit the building.

Oh randi.org says so, ok. I refuse to get too far into this debate having JUST went through all of this, but if the government was planning an attack on the pentagon and was going to pass it off as a plane wreck, don't you think they would have planted plane parts and throw a couple "witnesses" there to make it all seem legit?

racer8dan

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Oh randi.org says so, ok. I refuse to get too far into this debate having JUST went through all of this, but if the government was planning an attack on the pentagon and was going to pass it off as a plane wreck, don't you think they would have planted plane parts and throw a couple "witnesses" there to make it all seem legit?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

[QUOTE="Dasacant"] How about you back up some of those statements? Particularly the part about a hijacker being alive and well PannicAtack

How about you read the commission report?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

"A saudi man has reported to authorities that he is a real Abdual Aziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Al-Omari says he informed police of the theft". ABCnews

"I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." telegraph (issued 23rd September 2001)

"Al-Omari has since been found in Saudi Arabia and is apparently cleared in the case" New York Times

I have a lot more sources and dates issued if you want them.

BBC also reported WT7 falling 20 minutes before it did. I don't support Control Demo idea, however I think we need a better invest. There is reports from all big media names. You didn't do any research quite seriously otherwise you would have seen all the other mainstream sources examining this issue from all different dates.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Oh randi.org says so, ok. I refuse to get too far into this debate having JUST went through all of this, but if the government was planning an attack on the pentagon and was going to pass it off as a plane wreck, don't you think they would have planted plane parts and throw a couple "witnesses" there to make it all seem legit?

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="jamesgj"]

How about you read the commission report?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

"A saudi man has reported to authorities that he is a real Abdual Aziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Al-Omari says he informed police of the theft". ABCnews

"I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." telegraph (issued 23rd September 2001)

"Al-Omari has since been found in Saudi Arabia and is apparently cleared in the case" New York Times

I have a lot more sources and dates issued if you want them.

jamesgj

BBC also reported WT7 falling 20 minutes before it did. I don't support Control Demo idea, however I think we need a better invest. There is reports from all big media names. You didn't do any research quite seriously otherwise you would have seen all the other mainstream sources examining this issue from all different dates.

I'm also well-aware that in a crisis, people get really confused.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Exactly why would the government plan an attack on the Pentagon? There is absolutely no reason.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Oh randi.org says so, ok. I refuse to get too far into this debate having JUST went through all of this, but if the government was planning an attack on the pentagon and was going to pass it off as a plane wreck, don't you think they would have planted plane parts and throw a couple "witnesses" there to make it all seem legit?

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Oh randi.org says so, ok. I refuse to get too far into this debate having JUST went through all of this, but if the government was planning an attack on the pentagon and was going to pass it off as a plane wreck, don't you think they would have planted plane parts and throw a couple "witnesses" there to make it all seem legit?

PannicAtack

Also these "terrorist" decided to hit the area in which all the high ranking people we're not located. They we're located on the west bank if I remember correctly.

Why would the government want to run planes into the white house in the 1960s? War of course. Operation Northwoods.

unless you believe Oswald to be a lone shooter

racer8dan

Just for the record, it has been scientifically demonstrated that a bullet like the one Oswald fired, from a gun like the one Oswald used, fired from an elevation and distance away like the one at which Oswald would have been located, absolutely can do by itself the damage that was recorded to have been done.

Oh, let's not forget the CIA "training exercise" that happened on 9/11 which involved planes being flown into buildings. MushroomWig

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Oh randi.org says so, ok. I refuse to get too far into this debate having JUST went through all of this, but if the government was planning an attack on the pentagon and was going to pass it off as a plane wreck, don't you think they would have planted plane parts and throw a couple "witnesses" there to make it all seem legit?

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Exactly why would the government plan an attack on the Pentagon? There is absolutely no reason.

racer8dan

Oh, let's not forget the CIA "training exercise" that happened on 9/11 which involved planes being flown into buildings. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htmMushroomWig

You mean the one where they we're running planes into the WTC? People won't listen no matter how much facts you give them. Nor will they research or think for themselves.

Operation Northwoods.

jamesgj

Operation Northwoods is something that was during a time of panic, didn't really involve mass murder, and most importantly, did not happen.

obviously you have no idea since you weren't there to see it for yourselfMushroomWig

Lol, they found DNA because they told you so..obviously you have no idea since you weren't there to see it for yourself.MushroomWig

Fortunately, we have tons of witnesses who were there who testify to the effect that there was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon...

Were they all paid off by the government or something to say that?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]obviously you have no idea since you weren't there to see it for yourselfPannicAtack

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

Operation Northwoods.

PannicAtack

Operation Northwoods is something that was during a time of panic, didn't really involve mass murder, and most importantly, did not happen.

Operation northwoods is a good example of the 911 ideals. Now it didn't happen, but they we're actually considering it, you are in denial son. I guess those 58,000 of our men back in the 60s died for a reason to, if you can find one I'd be happen to listen. Killing people isn't a problem for old people, they won't be in the line of fire.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]obviously you have no idea since you weren't there to see it for yourselfMushroomWig

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

Operation Northwoods.

jamesgj

Operation Northwoods is something that was during a time of panic, didn't really involve mass murder, and most importantly, did not happen.

Operation northwoods is a good example of the 911 ideals. Now it didn't happen, but they we're actually considering it, you are in denial son. I guess those 58,000 of our men back in the 60s died for a reason to, if you can find one I'd be happen to listen. Killing people isn't a problem for old people, they won't be in the line of fire.

[QUOTE="mastershakez"]

[QUOTE="Dasacant"] and what exactly does common sense say?McJugga

It was a generalised statement, not specifically pertaining the to topic at hand. I've already stated in this thread that I will not be arguing over this topic. Believe whatever you want, and I will do the same.

That's actually pretty funny, because I almost added "inb4 cuz ya know your argument is wrong!" at the end of my post. I swear I feel like a psychic sometimes. Thanks for the larf.

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Lol, they found DNA because they told you so..obviously you have no idea since you weren't there to see it for yourself.GabuEx

Fortunately, we have tons of witnesses who were there who testify to the effect that there was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon...

Were they all paid off by the government or something to say that?

Of course not, but thankfully the pictures speak for themselves. Check above, that was some impressive Pentagon Lawn, even a plane crash won't cause any visable damage, not like a normal plane crashMushroomWig

Generally when a plane doesn't make contact with the ground, it doesn't do that to the ground...

Here's a question that no one has ever given me a good answer to, so I'll give you a chance to do so: we already know from the WTC that the conspirators were more than capable of getting planes to fly into not one, but two buildings. If they wanted the official story in the Pentagon to be "a plane crashed into it", why would they not just... crash a plane into it?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Lol, they found DNA because they told you so..obviously you have no idea since you weren't there to see it for yourself.MushroomWig

Fortunately, we have tons of witnesses who were there who testify to the effect that there was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon...

Were they all paid off by the government or something to say that?