The smokescreen theory

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Ok the perps were planning 911

Why are there several instances of bombs going off prior to the destruction of the twin towers

Now some of you may argue that these earlier bombs went off to weaken the structure to make sure the building fell into it's own footprint but I can't buy that. If the entire structure was brought down by explosives surely they would only have to press the button once.

So if the perps needed Joe Public to believe it was explosives that brought down the twin towers then they would need lots of witnesses to say they heard bombs going off.

What did we get? Willie Rodriguez with bombs in the basement and the guy who was filming across the water who picked up the sound of bombs prior to the actual destruction plus lots of testimony on the streets from Joe Public about bombs going off.

What possible motive could the perps have for wanting Joe Public to believe it was bombs.

Think about it - within a day the official conspiracy is blown out of the water because of the reports of bombs - THEY KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN - so why would they want this to happen.

Because they wanted this as a smokescreen to cover up what was really happening - THE BEAM WEAPON

[andyb]

so how did this beam weapon start a progessive looking collapse from the top down?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

I don't know Andy - but can you think of a better explanation why all these earlier explosions were needed

[andyb]

to weaken the structure perhaps but I suppose that is too rational. The explosions have hardly got widespread coverage so this smokescreen stuff IMO is rubbish. Why don't we get the info out about the explosions rather than this Doctor Spock stuff?

[telecasterisation]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

So Telly

Going back to the main point - why if it was explosives did they not press the button just once?

[telecasterisation]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Settle down Telly

They knew the planes brought the buildings down would be discredited - for such a big operation even they would check the melting point of steel.

So they set this up as the reason knowing full well it will get blown away.

They have the earlier bombs going off to make sure there are plenty of wintnesses saying they heard bombs.

So they know that explosives will be the reason for bringing down WTC in the minds of all the 911 truth people. Even George Bush mentioned it.

They thought they would get away with this

Until now ....................... Step forward Judy Woods


The fact that bombs implicates the Bush administation or whoever - maybe they wanted that to happen - Maybe Bush is just a higher level Patsy.

The democrats are now favourite to win the next presidency - more of the same - just wearing a different hat.

[andyb]

[Garcon Warrior]

So basically your saying that the aircraft crashing into the wtc was a smokescreen for the bombs going off in the basement, which was actually a smokescreen for the - THE BEAM WEAPON.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[brian]

So basically your saying that the aircraft crashing into the wtc was a smokescreen for the bombs going off in the basement, which was actually a smokescreen for the - THE BEAM WEAPON.


Yep
-----------


Says it all - any chance of returning to the real world any time soon people?

[Snowygrouch]

If we get called morons by the press......you know what?

We bloody well deserve it.

[John White]

No Planes/Beam weapons IS a smokescreen: a smokescreen hiding the platform of consensus that had been built around CD prior to the 5th anniversary.

We have got NO proof Beam weapons exist in orbit

We have got NO proof of the capabilities or the observable effects of such hypothetical weapons

We have got NO proof that a hypothetical weapon is the most dominant probability to explain what happened to the towers

All we've got is a hypothesis that it must be a beam weapon becuase of a hypothetical need to not "breach the bathtub": whose function was to allow access to bedrock to build the towers, not to stop manhatten from flooding

But what we have got is gullable excitable fantasists who view 9/11 as a hobby in w*nkfestation, as exampled by some posters on this site, as multiplied 1000's fold across the Internet, who lap up these theories without any self restraint and propogate this smokescreen across the whole community and are dragging 9/11 truth into oblivion, and wether knowingly or unknowingly are doing military intelligence's job for them, just as happened in UFOLOGY: the aim is simple: keep everything a "mystery": because mysteries are no threat to anyone

I now support the call of Ian Neal and others for this forum to be detached from the UK 9/11 Truth Campaign, in order that a solid platform be constructed from which the UK Campaign can effectively network with other campaigns and continue to push awareness of 9/11 Truth forwards: becuase the format of this forum clearly cannot do so any longer

[telecasterisation]

If a beam weapon brought down the WTC, you'd;

1) Fly your plane into the tower.

2) Wait a while.

3) Use the weapon to bring the building down.

4) Job done.

They wouldn't need bombs, imagined or otherwise and no smokescreens, you wouldn't need diversions. The evidence would be toast, there would be no forensic trace of thermwhatever, no video evidence of thermwhatever burning/cutting, no witnesses hearing 'bombs' going off.

To start daft sub-plot type scenarios completely and utterly nukes the whole 'plane hits building' concept, because as the terrorists would be incapable of planting the charges needed to bring the buildings down - it could ONLY be an inside-job. Hence 1, 2, 3 as above is the best possible scenario - the planes bring down the buildings as far as the world is concerned.

Am I to understand that the 'beam-weapon' exponents are now saying that the angle-cuts in the supports was done from space, or is that now consigned to 'coincidence'?

[andyb]

TTWSU3 does not seem able to answer any questions regarding any of his questions directly. He'll either ask you a question, call you dim or refer to someone else's website, allshowing a lack of understanding in what he goes on about. He starts threads with divicive titles like 'If you thought No-Plane was controversial', etc and saps the energy of the sane. At least the critics help us firm up our arguments and aren't used against us. All this nonsense will make people dismiss the real issues

[chek]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[telecasterisation]

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote;

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[andyb]

[Andrew Johnson]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Andrew is spot on with his views on the press

Who gives a toss what the mainstream media think or report

The British Media has been guilty of covering up the truth on 911 and 7/7

If the truth ever becomes public knowledge don't expect the media to play any part in it - after all they would have to find themselves guilty of treason for suppressing information but releasing disinformation for all these years.

The only media worth a hoot is now The Alternative Media - US

It is our duty to find out the truth and tell anybody who will listen - the best way to get at the truth is to question everything and anything, if we end up looking stupid from time to time - so be it - it's a price well worth paying.

[Garcon Warrior]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Garcon Warrior]

I am glad you and your friend TWSU3 find this forum amusing when many other people are not so happy with some of this sensationlist drivel that gets spouted in some threads.

Hopefully you can have a good laugh at TWSU3 pm to me earlier telling me to get lost (I thought this forum was trying to bring people together not trying to get people off the forum). But it seems people on this forum who are trying to make this forum a better place to post are usually called a shill or swore at.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Garcon Warrior]

[John White]