- Banned
- #2,951
debunk it then
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2
- Thread starter Exe Gesis
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
debunk it then
You have eyes don't you?
Look at the building's collapse. It falls at free-fall speed. The only way this is possible is if all the supporting columns are knocked down simultaneously.
Use your brain.
Additionally, this building housed the offices of the CIA. No surprise clearing everything quickly and shipping it all out before a forensic exam of the remains could be conducted. We also have the infamous "pull it" quote from Larry Silverstein. "Pull it" means to take down a building.
So let me get this right - you are inferring that there was a conspiracy to destroy the twin towers with civilian aircraft and demolitions in New York to then enable the US government to invade Iraq so that the Vice President could award his ex-employees a lucrative contract two years later. Surely there must have been an easier way for Cheney to back hand contracts to his old mates?
Once again it's just look at it. No evidence about how they would have gone about achieving this with demolitions. Yes it's footage of a building collapsing, collapsing after two 100+ story building fell around it and on top of it.
So observational evidence and the tell-tale signs of demolition means nothing then?
Okay fine, we should subscribe to the ridiculous, physically impossible story of office fires doing all that then.
It didn't fall "on top of it". The building was still standing, there was no catastrophic damage to it. From all the photos we've seen of building 7, we have not seen anything that would indicate it was severely damaged. There were buildings closer to the twin towers than building 7, more heavily damaged yet remained standing.
It is the most logical, scientifically accurate answer. The "how" can only be known by those responsible, or part of it. The "when" and the "what" has already been answered.
An interesting excerpt from the radio interview I linked earlier:
How convenient.
I've posted this link before in this thread but I'll post it again for you.So observational evidence and the tell-tale signs of demolition means nothing then?
Okay fine, we should subscribe to the ridiculous, physically impossible story of office fires doing all that then.
It didn't fall "on top of it". The building was still standing, there was no catastrophic damage to it. From all the photos we've seen of building 7, we have not seen anything that would indicate it was severely damaged. There were buildings closer to the twin towers than building 7, more heavily damaged yet remained standing.
It is the most logical, scientifically accurate answer. The "how" can only be known by those responsible, or part of it. The "when" and the "what" has already been answered.
An interesting excerpt from the radio interview I linked earlier:
How convenient.
http://www.google.com.au/url?url=ht...AQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNH9jERk-eeHZ_UvhwMhKRP-oXY56w
So - have we finally moved on from the position that the Twin Towers were brought down using demolitions?
- Banned
- #2,957
I wouldn't expect you to understand as you clearly have an extremely narrow and uninformed view of the world.
Watching the doco I posted a few pages back 'JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick' will help you.
911 is easily understood if you stick to the basic principle... Follow the money.
PatrickBateman
Norm Smith Medallist
No understanding of how Western politics / industry operates or the history of modern war in general, which is why you won't answer my question earlier.
You'll find that the people asking the most questions actually have a LOT more knowledge than those like yourself who accept what's spoon fed, then look for reasons to believe what's even illogical. Fear slots in there too.
Is that it? Sure the edge of the south face looks damaged, but nothing like 25% of the building Popular Mechanics likes to claim. So where is this huge gaping hole? Where are the actual pictures of it so we can see it clearly? Oh, right... there aren't any. At least not to the public. How convenient, once again!
There have been buildings that had received far worse damage than that, yet were still standing. You also have to explain how something like that can neatly free-fall down. Here is something to counterpoint your article too.
Heck, even someone with a high school knowledge of physics would understand the official story is a load of s**t.
I even pointed out that NIST themselves got something very fundamentally wrong, where they had no choice but to admit building 7 did free-fall. It was ignored of course, apparently such an oversight for an organisation tasked with finding out how the buildings collapsed doesn't matter.
Nah, I think I'll skip it thanks.
New 3.5 Hour Documentary, JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick, While Flawed, Presents Valuable Historic Insights into Elite Machinations
Notes from Ken Adachi, Editor
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/everythingrichmanstrick14jan15.shtml#top
January 14, 2015
New 3.5 Hour Documentary, JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick, While Flawed, Presents Valuable Historic Insights into NWO Elite Machinations (Jan. 14, 2015)
I got an email from Ed D. today urging me to watch a recently released (Nov. 2014) documentary written and narrated by Francis Richard Conolly called JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick. It’s a long documentary, 3 hours and 28 minutes, but engrossing and fascinating to watch. The first portion of the video, taken as a historical overview of the trickery and deceptions employed by the Illuminated elites to suck us into endless wars and keep us locked into a subsistence level economic condition, is more reliable than the mid and latter section of the video which is devoted to the details of the conspiracy surrounding the JFK assassination. Many of those conspiracy details are presented fairly, however, many other key conspiratorial assertions and claims made by Francis Conolly, while labeling all previous documentaries and films about the JFK assassination as products of CIA fabrications, are themselves inaccurate and untrue, and can’t be characterized as anything other than disinformation.
After viewing the names that Conolly credits at the end of the video, including:
Jim Mars [sic],
Robert Groden,
Stew Webb,
David Lifton,
Vincent Palamara, and
Mark Lane,
I can see how and why Conolly got the details of who shot JFK and Connally so very, very wrong. With the exception of Stew Webb, the other names listed have been described by Bill Cooper and other JFK assassination researchers as government gatekeepers, counterintelligence spinners, or ‘story containment’ specialists, especially when it comes to concealing the pivotal role played by individuals within the US Secret Service who were involved in the planning, execution (literally), and cover-up of the JFK assassination plot.
It will take a bit of time to write up my objections and counterclaims to the faulty assertions made in this video, however, I will post them on this page as I assemble a critique. In the meantime, you can watch the video and come to your own conclusions.
This video is masterfully produced. In fact, it’s so convincing, so well assembled and so flawlessly narrated by Conolly, that many people, unfamiliar with the facts, will wonder how I could possibly claim that it’s anything but the greatest documentary ever made on the JFK assassination. But stay tuned. I have a few things to say here.
Ken Adachi
© Copyright 2015 Educate-Yourself.org All Rights Reserved.
http://www.google.com.au/url?url=ht...IQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNEh3UvxDVrr1LP8FlTJ_u6j33UIOw
- Banned
- #2,962
What assertions are inaccurate and untrue?
The 'Who shot JFK' question (as in the actual individuals) in the context of this documentary means very little.. Only who setup the assassination (and who benefited) from his death matters.. You wouldn't have a clue about it and you clearly don't want to learn.
The 'Who shot JFK' question (as in the actual individuals) in the context of this documentary means very little.. Only who setup the assassination (and who benefited) from his death matters.. You wouldn't have a clue about it and you clearly don't want to learn.
You're wrong on that, I'm just more discerning than you as to what sources I turn to for my information.
PatrickBateman
Norm Smith Medallist
You have no knowledge. You have no interest in learning anything. You're purely relaying Government information no matter how questionable it may be.
In other words, you're a model western citizen. Keep it up.
And all you can say is it couldn't happen that way (the government story) because it's impossible, but without providing any credible information or facts to the contrary. So what am I suppossed to be learning or have knowledge of? Three quarters of nothing.
PatrickBateman
Norm Smith Medallist
I'll say it again, understand who really runs the western world and who is in control. Until you do, none of this will make sense. That documentary provides an insight dating back to WW1. WATCH IT! Understand who benefits from war and just how great that benefit is!!
The basis here is that the Government refuses to answer legitimate questions. THEY release a story that is filled with untruths, yet we're supposed to simply sit back and accept it? Get called nut cases / crack pots / conspiracy theorists for questioning what's scientifically impossible or never happened in history ever before? Why should WE produce proof? We pay their salary, why shouldn't they answer to the people!?! Again, this is about asking questions. The very fact that this isn't possible is questionable in itself.
I find it insulting personally, and the reason this is the status quo is because of people like yourself. The state of mind that you'll strongly attempt to prove an opposing theory wrong, without even considering that the original bullshit theory is logical to begin with. Governments have lied to it's people forever, it's just the way it is. Do you not agree?
Look, I think what you are arguing is fair enough, however, there are other threads and forums to discuss these things. This is a thread about the 9/11 conspiracy only. Going off on different tangents is not helpful.
Now, to demonstrate that there was a conspiracy to conduct the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon for purposes other than terrorism against the US, you have to provide some credible evidence. You just can't continually argue that the Government is always lying to us, so they must be lying to us about this too.
Look at the facts that we have. Provide some evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down by a death ray and not planes, or that the pentagon was hit by a lazer and not a passenger jet, then we can have a proper discussion. Otherwise the existing facts stand on their own, don't they?
Now, to demonstrate that there was a conspiracy to conduct the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon for purposes other than terrorism against the US, you have to provide some credible evidence. You just can't continually argue that the Government is always lying to us, so they must be lying to us about this too.
Look at the facts that we have. Provide some evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down by a death ray and not planes, or that the pentagon was hit by a lazer and not a passenger jet, then we can have a proper discussion. Otherwise the existing facts stand on their own, don't they?
- Oct 16, 2009
- 11,164
- 9,363
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Can only dream of being this good
- Banned
- #2,968
Quite clear Thrawn I would've thought
- Oct 16, 2009
- 11,164
- 9,363
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Can only dream of being this good
Quite clear Thrawn I would've thought
What a load of crap.
It is quite clear from the video that the whole section of the building was continuously tipping over to the left... until it turned to dust, that is. The poorly analysed white text claims gravity takes over, but that's exactly what happened with the tilt. Gravity was forcing it to the left, and it would have continued so.
The video also fails to acknowledge the the laws of physics isn't selective, but apparently it is. The laws of physics don't change, whether it happens to a tree trunk or to a tall building.
Here's a close up of the collapse. It's very clear you can see the angle continue to the left of screen. Hope it helps Thrawn
It's very clear that the building portion is tilting and continuing on that path before it turns into dust. So tell me, how does it magically fall down straight instead of continuing its path of angular momentum? There's only one way you can "straighten" a toppling building while it's in mid air.
- Oct 16, 2009
- 11,164
- 9,363
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Can only dream of being this good
- Banned
- #2,972
I'm sorry it didn't change your view
Don't be. I'm sorry you're coming up with explanations that break the laws of physics.I'm sorry it didn't change your view
- Oct 16, 2009
- 11,164
- 9,363
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Can only dream of being this good
- Banned
- #2,974
What's so hard for you...Do you have eyes?
Maybe have a read of the detailed NIST report. Not the initial released hypothesis that nutters.com loves to quote, but the final report, when you still have a problem maybe it's time for you to step up with your physics ability.
It seems a waste of your talents if you're not exposing the 'fraud' at the highest level
Last edited:
- Banned
- #2,975
You are getting MPH confused with KM/H. You really enjoy your conspiracy theories being debunked don't you
Tell me about it.
Since pointing out the difference between 90,000 litres and 37,854 litres of jet fuel [Re fuel payload that hit a tower] you've been conspicuous by your absence.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/9-11-part-ii.923196/page-117#post-37425746
- Status
