FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The smokescreen theory
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:44 am    Post subject: The smokescreen theory Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andyb
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

so how did this beam weapon start a progessive looking collapse from the top down?
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know Andy - but can you think of a better explanation why all these earlier explosions were needed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andyb
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:01 am    Post subject: Re: The smokescreen theory Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
Ok the perps were planning 911

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


We briefly touched upon this in the other thread;

The purpose of the 'bombs' is what exactly, to facilitate the buildings' collapse or JUST a diversion tactic?

For the government to promote the additional aspect of bombs in the entire 9/11 scenario can only implicate themselves and this makes no sense to me. To generate a smokescreen to move the focus away from the 'real' cause of the collapse, the smokescreen being something that still implicates the real culprit is counter-productive.

You go to all the trouble of staging the plane impacts then slap in audibly clear explosives as a 'diversion'??? I really need this explaining, I am not being inflammatory, I just don't get your logic

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So Telly

Going back to the main point - why if it was explosives did they not press the button just once?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
So Telly

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


Okay, I can live with the 'ignore all the questions and points you raised' card in favour of simply asking your own question, but I genuinely can't say I understand what your question is??

'They' pressed the button more than once? We don't know this, we assume, or rather you do. There could have been a malfunction, car fuel tanks of gas explosions - I don't know and neither do you.

I accept 'Black Ops' isn't Denzel Washington's new movie about being a heart surgeon, but you have to at least come up with a viable explanation as to why the government would promote an alibi that still leaves them at the scene?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andyb
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
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.


of course Bush is a higher level patsy but your reasoning is nonsense. What makes you so sure of Judy Woods anyway?

_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Garcon Warrior
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 93
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

Quote:
They knew the planes brought the buildings down would be discredited


If they new that the planes hitting the wtc would be discredited why do it. Apart from the visual shock of seeing them hit the towers there is no reason why they would fly planes into the towers so it would be discredited.

Your doing a great job on these boards TWSU3 your a winner - top man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Garcon Warrior wrote:
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.

Quote:
They knew the planes brought the buildings down would be discredited


If they new that the planes hitting the wtc would be discredited why do it. Apart from the visual shock of seeing them hit the towers there is no reason why they would fly planes into the towers so it would be discredited.

Your doing a great job on these boards TWSU3 your a winner - top man.



Yep
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brian
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:35 pm    Post subject: beam weapons Reply with quote

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

We bloody well deserve it.

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World


Last edited by John White on Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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'?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andyb
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:
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


I for one support your stance 100%.
Enough of the gamers and hobbyists, it's past that stage now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
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'?



Maybe what you describe is points 1 to 4 is true - however the other bombs did go off earlier unless Willie Rodriguez is lying and the sounds of bombs we all heard prior to demolition were all false and played on powerful loudspeakers - so there must have been a reason for them aside from bringing the buildings down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote;
Quote:
Maybe what you describe is points 1 to 4 is true - however the other bombs did go off earlier unless Willie Rodriguez is lying and the sounds of bombs we all heard prior to demolition were all false and played on powerful loudspeakers - so there must have been a reason for them aside from bringing the buildings down.


As we have discussed, well I did and you ignored it, we don't know if they were bombs.

Remember though, there are better ways of getting the message out there than this - this is Mr Johnson before he discovered DVD copying;



truth.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  115.2 KB
 Viewed:  124 Time(s)

truth.jpg



_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC


Last edited by telecasterisation on Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

andyb wrote:
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



A simple solution for you Andy

If you see one of my postings - just ignore it - if everybody does that it will soon be consigned to the scrapheap because any that are not replied to move down the pecking order.

If however some people are interested in what I have to say "my specialist subject is stating the obvious" then the subject matter will get discussed - this is effectively a meritocracy for this board - interesting stuff gets discussed - boring stuff is ignored.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andyb
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
telecasterisation wrote:
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'?



Maybe what you describe is points 1 to 4 is true - however the other bombs did go off earlier unless Willie Rodriguez is lying and the sounds of bombs we all heard prior to demolition were all false and played on powerful loudspeakers - so there must have been a reason for them aside from bringing the buildings down.


DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:27 pm    Post subject: Re: beam weapons Reply with quote

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

We bloody well deserve it.


This has already happened. Why are they an authority on any of this? They have discussed next to nothing of the CD evidence or the level of corruption in the commission, for example?

You think the truth "looks good"?

One truth seems to be that about 70 or 80% of the UK population would like capital punishment re-introduced. Does that make it "correct"? Is the majority view always correct?

You think we should "control our discussion to look good to the press?" (isn't this what politicians do?) Why is the readership of all newspapers falling? Why are they swamping people with more and more free DVDs and geegaws?

My answer is: because they are no longer trusted to inform us, only to give us the news "with gimmicks"

We deserve the TRUTH based on scientific evidence. Judy Wood's study qualifies - even if people reject the conclusions. There is far more to 9/11 than most people here are willing to accept.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Garcon Warrior
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 93
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There is far more to 9/11 than most people here are willing to accept.


I dont think we would be on this forum if the people here did not have an open mind to what happened on 9/11. However to start threads like this and by a poster who was supporting no planes theory a few weeks ago with new evidence has jumped on another bandwagon. As andyb says no questions have been answered just a load of mish mash make it up as I go along writing. There are some great posters on this forum who give in depth analytical posts and are a credit to this forum. Maybe Andrew as you said in a previous post "nobody on this forum knows you like I do" you could have a talk with TWSU3 about having a few hours alone in the bathroom to have a serious word with himself.

So Andrew what else is there that happened on 9/11 that people would not accept?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Garcon Warrior wrote:
Maybe Andrew as you said in a previous post "nobody on this forum knows you like I do" you could have a talk with TWSU3 about having a few hours alone in the bathroom to have a serious word with himself.


This makes me smile. Yes I do know TSWU3 quite well - we talk on the phone quite often and have a bit of a laugh about all this. If I told him (or anyone posting here for that matter) what to think or how to be behave I would fully expect him to tell me to "shove it up my backside". i.e. I don't tell people how to behave or what to think - it's not my "job". I tell them what I think and then they can take it or leave it.

Quote:
So Andrew what else is there that happened on 9/11 that people would not accept?


I wasn't referring to events on 9/11 but other events which have happened which people "laugh at" because the conclusions that we come to if we agree these events really did happen change many of our assumptions.

What I mean is, that if it turns out that a beam weapon was used in the destruction of the WTC, it significantly changes the level of technology we thought existed at this point in time. One of the reasons why I think the beam weapon is correct is because it kind of ties in with other topics I have been looking at for the last 3 years (which I do not wish to discuss openly on this board because it is a 9/11 board). My "policy" on this is not to START threads on such topics, though I may add to posts started by others, depending on what and how it is being discussed.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

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.


I agree with this - we kind of take on the roll of the press - for those actively campaiging, giving out DVDs leaflets etc - they are the new press.

Will we make mistakes? Yes. Will we get every fact we put "out there" correct? No. We don't have "jobs to keep" as we don't work for a media company, which allows us a greater latitude of action.

We encourage people to empower themselves by checking for themselves - this is a recurring statement in the alternative press/media.

I don't think we can look to authority to expose 9/11 - because most authorities have covered up the truth (or a least failed to expose the cover up when evidence has been presented - I wrote about this quite a while ago: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=126

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Garcon Warrior
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 93
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Garcon Warrior wrote:
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.


My PM message told him to Get a Life

The fact is this is not sensationalist drivel but extensive research - Have you actually read Judy Wood's reports? - PROBABLY NOT

Non of you can offer any explanation of how those cars got frazzled or how those buildings were literally vaporised and the amount of rubble was a fraction of what it should have been for a conventional demolition.

These people have advanced weapons that you have never clapped eyes on.

You are devoid of logic.

Take away what cannot be true - whatever is left must be the truth however strange that may seem

Steve Jones is a set up - he's been there before to discredit Cold Fusion - check it out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Garcon Warrior
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 93
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.


Yes I do apologise it was the more warmly get a life rather than get lost.

Ok first question if they new the planes theory would be discredited why do it? why would you increase speculation on yourself if you have committed a crime.

Second question are you back on board they are real planes now or are they still holograms?

And finally do you really believe that it was a beam weapon that brought down wtc?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Steve Jones is a set up - he's been there before to discredit Cold Fusion


Uh-huh. So Judy Wood attacking Jones for describing CD as a theory whilst at the same time working on this theory that attemps to do away with CD altogether is a 100% legit move? I've looked at Woods paper in some detail, and its full of problems

Lets try the first one: the Bathtub had nothing to do with stopping Manhatten flooding: its function was to dry out the land so that bedrock could be reached to start the towers construction, as shown in the first 7 minutes here;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810&q=alex+jo nes&pl=true

Therefore avoiding damage to the bathtub is an irrelevant consideration

If you learned the purpose of having a back burner you wouldnt be all over the shop being pawned by every bit of dis-info designed to send you on goose chases

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group