@ Trancer-X: The 9-11 "truth movement" is full of cointelpro and frindge loonies (David Shayler and James Fetzer come to mind immediately). I don't think it's going anywhere and has already been succesfully sabotaged and marginalized, which is one reason why I stopped wasting my time with this. Alex Jones is another gatekeeper. Technically, 9-11 wasn't an inside job at all... if you want me to explain that one I can do it via PM, most posters here don't have the balls or intellectual sincerity to handle it.
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
@ Trancer-X: The 9-11 "truth movement" is full of cointelpro and frindge loonies (David Shayler and James Fetzer come to mind immediately). I don't think it's going anywhere and has already been succesfully sabotaged and marginalized, which is one reason why I stopped wasting my time with this. Alex Jones is another gatekeeper. Technically, 9-11 wasn't an inside job at all... if you want me to explain that one I can do it via PM, most posters here don't have the balls or intellectual sincerity to handle it.
Of course it is. I wouldn't expect anything less from them.
The path to the truth is definitely a lot harder to follow when it's set up to look like a hall of mirrors.
Although I don't want to sound condescending (it's too late for that) but most of the posters here also seem to lack the intellectual curiosity that's required to dig any further than the offical government reports or corporate press clippings - all of which only tell you what they want you to believe.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Technically, 9-11 wasn't an inside job at all... if you want me to explain that one I can do it via PM, most posters here don't have the balls or intellectual sincerity to handle it.
oh please. and you wonder why people take issue with your attitude! :haha: see, ive never wondered why people have issues with mine :p
what a bunch of arrogant twaddle. anytime you want to provide me with a "macro" story for the events as they (more or less) unfolded on 9/11 that doesn't reek of naivete or one that makes no sense whatsoever, then im all ears mate ;)
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh please. and you wonder why people take issue with your attitude! :haha: see, ive never wondered why people have issues with mine :p
what a bunch of arrogant twaddle. anytime you want to provide me with a "macro" story for the events as they (more or less) unfolded on 9/11 that doesn't reek of naivete or one that makes no sense whatsoever, then im all ears mate ;)
You just love this thread don't you? :p
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
You just love this thread don't you? :p
Side by side comparisons of controlled demolitions.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Side by side comparisons of controlled demolitions.
wow thats sooooo convincing.:rolleyes:
if i video taped two guys standing next to each other, and shot one in the head with a pistol and the other had an brain anuerism they'd fall in a similar fashion as well. why? b/c they are two guys just standing there.
in addition, the south tower falling should be obvious to you that it fails at the point of impact. the north tower does the same. coincedence? no.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
There is no difference.
They killed thousands of their own innocent people either way.
It's never been about about if they did it themselves or just had a hand in it, when it boils down they should be persecuted like the rest. They are in their position in the first place to stop these massacres.
Robert Baer also said "it was al-Qaeda that started it all by switching course and deciding to slaughter civilians in Manhattan and Bali."
Omega_M
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Side by side comparisons of controlled demolitions.
Compare the footage of the WTC fall with the footage of another sky scrapper falling under "natural circumstances". Then you will be better able to judge whether the fall was "natural" or controlled through demolition.
You assume the WTC fell through a controlled demolition and compare it with another controlled demolition. In this process, you neglect to see the dynamics of how a sky scrapper may fall under "natural circumstances". It may very well fall in a way that is consistent with the WTC fall. Thoughts ?
eROs.au
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
wow thats sooooo convincing.:rolleyes:
if i video taped two guys standing next to each other, and shot one in the head with a pistol and the other had an brain anuerism they'd fall in a similar fashion as well. why? b/c they are two guys just standing there.
in addition, the south tower falling should be obvious to you that it fails at the point of impact. the north tower does the same. coincedence? no.
Apparently, they planted explosives where they knew the planes would crash.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by eROs.au
Apparently, they planted explosives where they knew the planes would crash.
him and everyone else that has posted that "similar demolitioned buildings" crap should be immediately called out for flagrant failure of basic cognitive reasoning skills. IOW just not that smart.
why anyone with half a brain would use that as a basis for 9/11 conspiracies is beyond me.
please world, give us intelligent sheople to debate this crap for once.:rolleyes:
pkcRAISTLIN
the dumbest thing about that video is that the collapses are not at all alike. they are completely different failures.
the biggest force in a controlled demolition? GRAVITY. this is why those demolitions in the video show the buildings collapsing from the bottom up. the collapses of WTCs 1&2 occurred top => down, the complete opposite of a CD. the floors above the impact broke off in a chunk and road the floors below it all the way down.
in a building that was designed with most of its supporting steel in the outside VERTICAL frame of the building, NOT in a grid design horizontally i still don't understand why some people find this possibility so hard to entertain? especially the really fantastic notions that they accept with little or no skepticism.
