Amazing Footage...

waking life · Minor Poster Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 32

of Psy-Ops agent on 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fp7w_0_BzM

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009

This is incredible

Now he was pushing forward the failure of the steel on 9/11 itself - what about the rest of his statement - do you believe that ---- JAMES?

kbo234 · Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject:

Those f***ers were straight in there, weren't they?

Yee-hah! More evidence for our side, don't you agree?.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009

prole art threat · Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject:

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009

prole art threat · Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject:

waking life · Minor Poster Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 32

Me · Moderate Poster Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 431

Mr. (average joe blow) Harley Davidson man also appearing to be an expert structural engineer who just happened to be on the scene diagnosing the official line perfectly without the benefit of any close-up analysis?

I've always felt the same way about the now famous clip of the one guy who claimed that he was certain that he saw an American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon. He seemed to be ready and waiting for the news cameras as if planted with his scripted story already memorized. Of course our goverment has covert agents who would be well capable of purporting such nonsense.

blackcat · Validated Poster Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 2376

The psy-ops plant does say "mostly due to structural failure" he at least allows for other possibilities ......like explosives.

telecasterisation · Banned Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs

blackcat · Validated Poster Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 2376

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

Mark Gobell · On Gardening Leave Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529

I think I've got it !

This guy is probably Thomas "pancake" Eager, the infamous MIT chappy who just happened to be passing through Manhattan that morning, dressed down to avoid his heavy metallurgy fans.

His instant understanding of why 500,000 tons of concrete and steel callapsed to the ground in 10 seconds after localised fires which could have been doused with a couple of hoses having burned for 56 minutes and then were pulverised into dust clearly explains his ability to rush out a very scientific paper on the subject of pancakes a few days later.

I mean no mere mortal passer by could possibly have deduced the entire government official story in just a few minutes could they.

This then explains it.

Eager by name, eager by nature.

prole art threat · Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:36 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell · On Gardening Leave Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529

MiniMauve · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Aug 2006 Posts: 220

Why do you all get worked up over stuff like this??? Sure, the passerby MIGHT be a plant giving a rehearsed line, or he MIGHT be one of those personality types that always need to appear as if they know everything. We all know people like that. There isn't enough to go on in that video clip to say one way or the other. The original movie that that piece was spliced from certainly didn't say that. The main point here is that it is IRRELEVANT. Instead of attacking each other over whether we think it is a plant or an ordinary citizen, realize that it was the media saturation over the next few days that implanted the 'weakened structure' explanation in the population's mind.

prole art threat · Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject:

DeFecToR · Moderate Poster Joined: 11 Jul 2006 Posts: 782

Have i just arrived in the twilight zone or something?

Everyone is behaving like this clip means anything. It doesnt!!!
Yes he is suspicious, and yes he may well be some kind of agent for the government, BUT IT IS JUST A CLIP OF HIM TALKING!!!
WAKE UP for god sake. This is NOT evidence. For this to be in any way useful would require ACTUALLY PROVING he works for the government.
Has anyone done this?

* SAKE!!! Its bad facts and reliance on weak evidence like this that we even HAVE a critics corner.

Could you take this clip to court?

prole art threat · Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject:

waking life · Minor Poster Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 32

Couldn't agree more Prole.

This is a brilliant clip to wake people up, who have already seen the evidence, to the sophisticated level of psychology involved.

We were all in a state of shock, in effect hypnotised, which meant we were wide open to any suggestion being made.

No matter who said it.

This is the official theory, which is still being presented 5 years later, being born on the streets within hours.

MiniMauve · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Aug 2006 Posts: 220

Are 'experts in body language' called on to give evidence in court? Not that I've ever heard of... The point some people are trying to make, and I fully agree with, is that it is unprovable if this guy is lying or if he's just talking uninformed nonsense. That was my point Prole, lots of people talk mad s_hite about things they know nothing about. For all you or your 'body language experts' know, he could appear to be lying because he knows that he just talking s_hite.

The point is: this isn't evidence; we have real evidence for CD; we have lots of that real evidence; it's irrelevant even if it's true that he is a government agent b/c it's unprovable; it's irrelevant even if we could prove it b/c it doesn't show anything except that some government agent said the towers came down by fire (is that news?). Ergo, there is nothing to gain in fighting one another over such silliness.

Me · Moderate Poster Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 431

No one - to the best of my knowledge - is suggesting that we use this as testimony in court so it's a moot point. We're just discussing it. If we can't discuss this here in the "general" section of an Internet forum than where?

I fully agree that there's no reason to fight over this. We damn well ought not to be fighting over whether or not we should be talking about this clip. It’s not really much different from any other aspect if 9/11 truth in that people who are inclined to believing the official line often perceive things one way and cynics often another.

Lets not forget that there’s one other court out there that’s more important than any and that’s the court of public opinion. There are no dubious stipulations when it comes to the relevancy of evidence in that grand courtroom. My personal opinion is that we sufficiently cover all grounds of the case, even those that might seem inadequate at first.

DeFecToR · Moderate Poster Joined: 11 Jul 2006 Posts: 782

Listen up Prole and waking life. If you care to read exactly what i posted you will find that i DO believe it is suspicious and that he probably is a plant.
You however, seem to have missed my point entirely. This clip means nothing. Someone wrote that it is another 'smoking gun'. What utter nonsense. This clip, without further evidence of who this guy actually is, means absolutely nothing. And proves absolutely nothing.

Again i ask;
CAN YOU TAKE THIS CLIP TO COURT?

MiniMauve · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Aug 2006 Posts: 220

Mark Gobell · On Gardening Leave Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529

MiniMauve · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Aug 2006 Posts: 220

dry kleaner · Minor Poster Joined: 15 Feb 2006 Posts: 86

It's a very interesting clip. It does look like a planted witness, like in the De Menzes case you have 'witnesses' who said they saw him jumping the gate with a heavy jacket on and yet reality was far from that. So who were those witnesses?
Interesting.

Peace and love
DK

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1