By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Was 911 an inside job?

 

Was it?

No 109 98.20%
 
Total:109
Max King of the Wild said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0

3 minutes in you see people standing in front of an engine at full thrust... hmmm i thought theyd be sucked in... I mean fuck the cameraman is right in front of it shooting it


Cameraman is zoomed in and off to the right side, the range of being sucked in is rather small. Same video...look what happens to the car...

Witness said he had to duck to avoid the engine...see why I'm suspicious?

Can you link the source about the body parts? If there are photos I will shut up about it as well. 



Around the Network
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0

3 minutes in you see people standing in front of an engine at full thrust... hmmm i thought theyd be sucked in... I mean fuck the cameraman is right in front of it shooting it

'If these engines run at full thrust they'd start to rip up the runway' End quote.

LOL, I think that proves you entirely wrong. Did you see what it did to that car?! Imagine that being a man.

Same old truther bullshit shit... Spewing half truths taking things out of context or convienently leaving shit out on purpose.

 "If these engines run at full thrust for more than 20 seconds they will start to rip up the runway"



Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0

3 minutes in you see people standing in front of an engine at full thrust... hmmm i thought theyd be sucked in... I mean fuck the cameraman is right in front of it shooting it

'If these engines run at full thrust they'd start to rip up the runway' End quote.

LOL, I think that proves you entirely wrong. Did you see what it did to that car?! Imagine that being a man.

Same old truther bullshit shit... Spewing half truths taking things out of context or convienently leaving shit out on purpose.

 "If these engines run at full thrust for more than 20 seconds they will start to rip up the runway"


Dear oh dear. You really like picking at straws lol. If a man was anywhere near that engine whilst it was 'FLYING' it would have torn him to shreds. there would have been nothing left of him. These are made up comments to cover very tight asses. Your denial is frightening. The plane was FLYING, not on a runway ready to take off! LOL!!!!!!!!!

Could you perhaps take your mobile phone to an airport and try this out. That's one video I'd love to see on youtube.



dsgrue3 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0

3 minutes in you see people standing in front of an engine at full thrust... hmmm i thought theyd be sucked in... I mean fuck the cameraman is right in front of it shooting it


Cameraman is zoomed in and off to the right side, the range of being sucked in is rather small. Same video...look what happens to the car...

Witness said he had to duck to avoid the engine...see why I'm suspicious?

Can you link the source about the body parts? If there are photos I will shut up about it as well. 



You are right, he is zoomed in and is off to the side, but if you think for one second the guy was closer than this cameraman than you are a fool. You are taking his words completely out of context like every other truther. He said he had to duck because it would have taken his head off.... if he were being literal that would mean the plane was on ground already. It's obvious he meant he had to duck because it was unnaturally low and startled him... Just like if you aren't paying attention and someone or something is right next to you. You turn to walk away and all of a sudden the object goes into your view. You not realizing it was there jump back because you think its about to hit you... common sense.



Max King of the Wild said:
dsgrue3 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0

3 minutes in you see people standing in front of an engine at full thrust... hmmm i thought theyd be sucked in... I mean fuck the cameraman is right in front of it shooting it


Cameraman is zoomed in and off to the right side, the range of being sucked in is rather small. Same video...look what happens to the car...

Witness said he had to duck to avoid the engine...see why I'm suspicious?

Can you link the source about the body parts? If there are photos I will shut up about it as well. 



You are right, he is zoomed in and is off to the side, but if you think for one second the guy was closer than this cameraman than you are a fool. You are taking his words completely out of context like every other truther. He said he had to duck because it would have taken his head off.... if he were being literal that would mean the plane was on ground already. It's obvious he meant he had to duck because it was unnaturally low and startled him... Just like if you aren't paying attention and someone or something is right next to you. You turn to walk away and all of a sudden the object goes into your view. You not realizing it was there jump back because you think its about to hit you... common sense.

Ha, this is funny. It nearly took his head off but he wasn't as close as the camera man!!! At first this thread was frustrating me but now it's the most entertaining thread on here at the moment. Keep up the good work my friend. The video was posted to prove that someone could be right behind the jet and not sustain injuries but you also want to say that it wasn't 'really' that close. Which is it? Priceless fact stacking.



Around the Network
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0

3 minutes in you see people standing in front of an engine at full thrust... hmmm i thought theyd be sucked in... I mean fuck the cameraman is right in front of it shooting it

'If these engines run at full thrust they'd start to rip up the runway' End quote.

LOL, I think that proves you entirely wrong. Did you see what it did to that car?! Imagine that being a man.

Same old truther bullshit shit... Spewing half truths taking things out of context or convienently leaving shit out on purpose.

 "If these engines run at full thrust for more than 20 seconds they will start to rip up the runway"


Dear oh dear. You really like picking at straws lol. If a man was anywhere near that engine whilst it was 'FLYING' it would have torn him to shreds. there would have been nothing left of him. These are made up comments to cover very tight asses. Your denial is frightening. The plane was FLYING, not on a runway ready to take off! LOL!!!!!!!!!



So you get shown up at purposely spewing lies and this is what you give me? Picking at straws? I'd say the part you left out was a major fact that you convienently left out.

There you go again with the conspiracy of made up comments.... so let's recap... paid actors, planes, families made up, riders made up, demo experts, military men, missles, thermite, thermate, executive orders, invading afghanistan because we want to go in to iraq, missles, ect ect...



Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0

3 minutes in you see people standing in front of an engine at full thrust... hmmm i thought theyd be sucked in... I mean fuck the cameraman is right in front of it shooting it

'If these engines run at full thrust they'd start to rip up the runway' End quote.

LOL, I think that proves you entirely wrong. Did you see what it did to that car?! Imagine that being a man.

Same old truther bullshit shit... Spewing half truths taking things out of context or convienently leaving shit out on purpose.

 "If these engines run at full thrust for more than 20 seconds they will start to rip up the runway"


Dear oh dear. You really like picking at straws lol. If a man was anywhere near that engine whilst it was 'FLYING' it would have torn him to shreds. there would have been nothing left of him. These are made up comments to cover very tight asses. Your denial is frightening. The plane was FLYING, not on a runway ready to take off! LOL!!!!!!!!!



So you get shown up at purposely spewing lies and this is what you give me? Picking at straws? I'd say the part you left out was a major fact that you convienently left out.

There you go again with the conspiracy of made up comments.... so let's recap... paid actors, planes, families made up, riders made up, demo experts, military men, missles, thermite, thermate, executive orders, invading afghanistan because we want to go in to iraq, missles, ect ect...

No, let's just stick with your recent claims for the moment. Don't go belly up on me again. This is far more entertaining.



Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
dsgrue3 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0

3 minutes in you see people standing in front of an engine at full thrust... hmmm i thought theyd be sucked in... I mean fuck the cameraman is right in front of it shooting it


Cameraman is zoomed in and off to the right side, the range of being sucked in is rather small. Same video...look what happens to the car...

Witness said he had to duck to avoid the engine...see why I'm suspicious?

Can you link the source about the body parts? If there are photos I will shut up about it as well. 



You are right, he is zoomed in and is off to the side, but if you think for one second the guy was closer than this cameraman than you are a fool. You are taking his words completely out of context like every other truther. He said he had to duck because it would have taken his head off.... if he were being literal that would mean the plane was on ground already. It's obvious he meant he had to duck because it was unnaturally low and startled him... Just like if you aren't paying attention and someone or something is right next to you. You turn to walk away and all of a sudden the object goes into your view. You not realizing it was there jump back because you think its about to hit you... common sense.

Ha, this is funny. It nearly took his head off but he wasn't as close as the camera man!!! At first this thread was frustrating me but now it's the most entertaining thread on here at the moment. Keep up the good work my friend. The video was posted to prove that someone could be right behind the jet and not sustain injuries but you also want to say that it wasn't 'really' that close. Which is it? Priceless fact stacking.


You have a very selective brain as your previous comment has demonstrated. I know more than a few times my initial reaction to things that startle me is jumping backwards. Then after the fact I realize that object or person posed no threat to me... but only after I had time to think about what happened... If someone where to ask me about it I would straight up said "I had to jump backwards because I was about to run into something."

You conspiracy theorist are all the same... "WHY DID HE SAY THAT!?" to every single fucking thing. You make it out to be more than it really is. You add things in quotes to fit your agend, leave things out to fit your agenda, or take things out of context to fit your agenda.



Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
dsgrue3 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0

3 minutes in you see people standing in front of an engine at full thrust... hmmm i thought theyd be sucked in... I mean fuck the cameraman is right in front of it shooting it


Cameraman is zoomed in and off to the right side, the range of being sucked in is rather small. Same video...look what happens to the car...

Witness said he had to duck to avoid the engine...see why I'm suspicious?

Can you link the source about the body parts? If there are photos I will shut up about it as well. 



You are right, he is zoomed in and is off to the side, but if you think for one second the guy was closer than this cameraman than you are a fool. You are taking his words completely out of context like every other truther. He said he had to duck because it would have taken his head off.... if he were being literal that would mean the plane was on ground already. It's obvious he meant he had to duck because it was unnaturally low and startled him... Just like if you aren't paying attention and someone or something is right next to you. You turn to walk away and all of a sudden the object goes into your view. You not realizing it was there jump back because you think its about to hit you... common sense.

Ha, this is funny. It nearly took his head off but he wasn't as close as the camera man!!! At first this thread was frustrating me but now it's the most entertaining thread on here at the moment. Keep up the good work my friend. The video was posted to prove that someone could be right behind the jet and not sustain injuries but you also want to say that it wasn't 'really' that close. Which is it? Priceless fact stacking.


You have a very selective brain as your previous comment has demonstrated. I know more than a few times my initial reaction to things that startle me is jumping backwards. Then after the fact I realize that object or person posed no threat to me... but only after I had time to think about what happened... If someone where to ask me about it I would straight up said "I had to jump backwards because I was about to run into something."

You conspiracy theorist are all the same... "WHY DID HE SAY THAT!?" to every single fucking thing. You make it out to be more than it really is. You add things in quotes to fit your agend, leave things out to fit your agenda, or take things out of context to fit your agenda.


Ok, so where was the gentleman in question standing? Those that witnessed the plane going overhead weren't startled, they just observed which direction the plane was coming from.  Presumably this gentleman was much closer but at what height was the plane when it went over his head. Remeber that it hit the Pentagon at ground level, so was it 5ft, 7ft, 10ft 15ft? And just how 'suddenly' did he realise he could hear a plane. Did he hear it and think 'naaaa...' then hear it get louder and think 'mmmmmm....' then finally turn to look and think 'shit! Duck!'. Or did it suddenly materialise directly behind him?



Gribble said:
Ckmlb1 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
dsgrue3 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

It was obviously a jumbo plane

That website is a joke. From the website itself:

Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, the 6'2" Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head."Source

Do you realize the type of winds produced by the engines? It's equivalent to a hurricane. As the plane flew "over" him he would have been blown backward voilently and suffer extreme injuries or death.

 

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept.

Plane obliterated and body intact and strapped to the seat? LMFAO

 

They seriously need to create a "Like" button on this site. Well done good sir!


Yet, dsgrue doesn't provide any evidence for his claims... all he does is say "that site is a joke" and I'm suppose to be convinced by that?

So what is your take on the guys testimony? That it was a paid actor by the US government? Okay, so 104 people involved in the conspiracy so far and all are peons... this operation is getting very convoluted

This huge conspiracy involving hundreds of people, killing thousands of people and not one leak from the government, not one person to tell the media for either feeling guilty or to make a buck, not one legitimate news channel or newspaper or magazine making the case, it's amazing how all powerful the US government is except they can't even cover up damn waterboarding or watergate scandal, but they can pull off the perfect operation coordinated fully and with not one person even anonymously leaking information out. Priceless.

But it WAS full of holes and there were plenty of people that told the truth. Why the hell do you think the experts are calling for a full investigation? It was a mess from start to finish. Impossible scenario, towers falling against the laws of physics, disappearing plane, box cutter armed terrorists successfully overpower three planes and not one pilot hit the panic button, planes going off course and nothing was done, terrorist picked the perfect day to do it (when every plane was on training missions), Pentagon hit by passenger plane and made a small hole, no marks in the grass, witnesses saying they heard explosions but no one seemed to listen to them, firemen saying there was molten metal, but no one seemed to listen to them, tower falling from fire that was hit by nothing, evidence immediately sent to China, claiming there was no contingency plan for such an attack when there was, denying there was high temperatures when there was... It just goes on and on. 

If you tried to make a movie out of the official report people would either laugh hysterically at it or walk out and ask for their money back.

For the last time, go here and watch these videos. Some are better than others but most of them have experts and footage to substantiate their claims:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/

You can get 'experts' that believe in anything. There's a university professor in Florida State University who is saying the Sandy Hook school shooting was faked by the government too. Can you actually give any proof of the conspiracy itself or any proof of the plan or those involved? All you are giving me is assumptions and you can line up more scientists who don't believe any of the theories you proposed. The Scientific American did an article on this years ago from the scientific perspective disproving the supposed science that prove the conspiracy: 

I can't get the full article without paying money, but here is an excerpt for free on the theory of bombs in the WTC (which no one that worked there noticed miraculously):

In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.

The people you claim are telling the truth have no witness accounts or any part (in the supposed conspiracy), all they have is casting doubt on evidence of who was behind it and how it was done and theories. Not a single one of these people have been able to prove anything to bring it to the media and convince people outside of conspiracy theorists.

As for the passengers not stopping them look at flight 93, the passengers brought the plane down that was heading to Washington DC. The passengers on the other planes not reacting? Had there ever been in the history of the world hijackings of passenger jets that were used as suicide planes? They thought they would be held hostage for ransom or some kind of demand and they did not want to risk their lives and their families' lives, pretty logical thinking if you don't know the planes are going to be crashed on purpose.



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb