| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I am neither a complete 'newbie' nor have I been around in this forum, or this movement, as long as Andrew Johnson. However, as one of about half a dozen people who posts under his real name I hope I am careful to preserve my professional credibility. I do not want to be associated with 'sensationalist drivel', I can assure you.
I do not buy No Planes, but I defend the right of those who do to be given the courtesy of a fair hearing. As regards Judy Wood's work, it has been subject to the most childish and irrational reception, the written equivalent of boos and catcalls. It is this, not the material itself, which is damaging to the movement.
None of us is beyond reproach. Some who bask in the security of being in the mainstream of the movement rather than the cutting edge, should remind themselves that their cherished 'certainties' are not accepted by a majority of the population. Within this movement itself, campaigners like Nico Haupt had an uphill struggle to be heard on Controlled Demolition. Now the same people who attacked him then are smugly accusing him of betraying the movement - a movement that he and others worked to create.
Do not make yourselves hostage to fortune - it may well be that within a few months we shall all be talking about lasers openly. The history of this movement is one of 'wacky, 'bizarre' theories eventually being proved to be true after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| andrewwatson wrote: | I am neither a complete 'newbie' nor have I been around in this forum, or this movement, as long as Andrew Johnson. However, as one of about half a dozen people who posts under his real name I hope I am careful to preserve my professional credibility. I do not want to be associated with 'sensationalist drivel', I can assure you.
I do not buy No Planes, but I defend the right of those who do to be given the courtesy of a fair hearing. |
Damn straight. I see no evidence of anyone being prevented from discussing it. I tend to avoid the threads myself
| Quote: | | As regards Judy Wood's work, it has been subject to the most childish and irrational reception, the written equivalent of boos and catcalls. It is this, not the material itself, which is damaging to the movement. |
There's no problem with how Woods herself has presented the theory. her site is well laid out and reasonable and obviously Fetzer gave her a clear platform in the recent interview. I do believe there is a kick back to how some members have taken up the theory with gusto and an abscence of critical thinking, and (already) returned to catcalling others not so rashly persuaded
| Quote: | | None of us is beyond reproach. |
So true
| Quote: | | Some who bask in the security of being in the mainstream of the movement rather than the cutting edge, should remind themselves that their cherished 'certainties' are not accepted by a majority of the population. |
Yes. I rather believe this to be a key point against those taking up theories purely on the strength of their imagination, rather than taking on the harder task of getting through to the multitude still out there the basics of the 9/11 Truth Position
| Quote: | | Within this movement itself, campaigners like Nico Haupt had an uphill struggle to be heard on Controlled Demolition. Now the same people who attacked him then are smugly accusing him of betraying the movement - a movement that he and others worked to create. |
Woah up there: the difficulty faced by Haupt was not the difficulty in accepting controlled demolition: it was the difficulty in accepting that the government had lied to the people with all the required adjustments to world view so entailed. CD was incidental to that challenge, other than as a theory that fits the evidence. With No Planes/Beam Weapons, the resitance is in abandoning a theory with some features of common sense and likelyhood for those straight out of science fiction, and its an entirely internal affair within the movement...save that these theories are so far beyond consenses reality that casual exposure/misrepresentation of them creates an excuse NOT to doubt the government rather than a motive to question in the populace at large. Its a very different picture. Until they are thoroughly tested and explored, anyone accepting them without question should be considered someone whos not screwed their thinking cap on. I find that even the most basic challenges to "No Planes" go ignored and unanswered by advocates. Hardly inspiring...and we shall see how it goes with "Beam Weapons"
| Quote: | | Do not make yourselves hostage to fortune - it may well be that within a few months we shall all be talking about lasers openly. The history of this movement is one of 'wacky, 'bizarre' theories eventually being proved to be true after all. |
I dont percieve that the history of 9/11 truth is one of bizarre theories at all, but of a general awakening to the real techniques and methods of power that have been throughly exposed for more than a generation for anyone who cared to go and look: 9/11 meerly provided motivation
I don't accept that we may all be talking lasers (or holograms) in a few months time at all: first, lets discover if there is any credible basis whatsoever for considering their are weaponised beam platforms orbiting the Earth. Then lets discover the theories of how such weapons might work. Then look at whether such weapons would result in the kind of effects seen on 9/11, especially with regard to the length of time such a weapon would have had to have taken to do the job, whether the fine control would be possible not to simply zap the whole tower in an instant, what other effects would accompany such a beam (such as super heating of atmosphere)...and then move on to consider if its a better hypothesis than CD. Its gonna be a lot longer than a few months before we are all talking Lasers on that basis.... but the UK campaign can ill afford to sit on its arse whilst all that is going on.
Neither can the campaign afford to have the ground it has gained undermined by being associated with unlikely unproven speculations. Stifling discussion of these theories on a forum would be wrong and unworkable...so the campaign will have to dissassociate from the forum in order to have a solid platform for real campaigning, in my opinion (and the internet is chock-a-block with places for people to talk No Planes and beam Weapons to their hearts content)
And mark my words: next up is Aliens
When either "No Planes" or "Beam Weapons" is in the position to have a sound fully consistant theory that has identified its own drawbacks and reasonably addressed them, then maybe its time will come. And maybe that day will: maybe it won't
A lengthy reply, and I wouldnt want it to disguise the fact that I think youve made important points Andrew W and I do totally see your POV. I hope you can do the same for mine
Regards, John
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | 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,
You may not tell him what to think or post these theories up yourself, however the fact you talk to him on the phone and put these ideas into his head is just as bad. He is the most gullible poster on this board and you must know that he'll post it, which is tantamount to posting it yourself. If you really think it is worth debating why employ these tactics and not post it yourself, at least you try and explain it in a lucid fashion unlike TTWSU3. You also then move a thread about the absuridity of it all to critics corner which is an abuse of your moderation IMO.
I know how dedicated you are to all this Andrew but please do think about the consequences of your actions. Like John White said there are plenty of places to talk about these theories without getting them associated with the campaign. The name of the campaign is sat at the top of the page and like it not a few people will obviously not see the no endorsement policy. It is even more important with you being a moderator.TTWSU3 is also doing you no favours with his postings.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| andyb wrote: | | Andrew Johnson wrote: | | 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,
You may not tell him what to think or post these theories up yourself, however the fact you talk to him on the phone and put these ideas into his head is just as bad. He is the most gullible poster on this board and you must know that he'll post it, which is tantamount to posting it yourself. If you really think it is worth debating why employ these tactics and not post it yourself, at least you try and explain it in a lucid fashion unlike TTWSU3. You also then move a thread about the absuridity of it all to critics corner which is an abuse of your moderation IMO.
I know how dedicated you are to all this Andrew but please do think about the consequences of your actions. Like John White said there are plenty of places to talk about these theories without getting them associated with the campaign. The name of the campaign is sat at the top of the page and like it not a few people will obviously not see the no endorsement policy. It is even more important with you being a moderator.TTWSU3 is also doing you no favours with his postings. |
Hang on a minute - all I did was start a thread to get people posting thoughts on Judy Wood's theory - I want to hear all the ideas for and against.
You Andyb are making this personal by attacking me for starting this thread - I think you have some mental problems - go and see a shrink |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is not only my opinion fella. I was not attacking you for simply posting this thread but for many of the threads you've posted. You didn't start this thread to discuss Judy wood's ideas, it was to discuss your insane theory that there were bombs set off as a smokescreen for your beam weapon. Utter drivvel. I tell you what, let's both go and see a shrink together and see who gets sectioned.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| andyb wrote: | | It is not only my opinion fella. I was not attacking you for simply posting this thread but for many of the threads you've posted. You didn't start this thread to discuss Judy wood's ideas, it was to discuss your insane theory that there were bombs set off as a smokescreen for your beam weapon. Utter drivvel. I tell you what, let's both go and see a shrink together and see who gets sectioned. |
Yes the smokescreen theory is mine, but the main ones that you and others want banned are no planes and beam weapons.
And how can you say something is drivel when you or anybody else for that matter has been unable to offer an explanation for all the bombs that went off prior to the main demolition. You only need to press the plunger once. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | andyb wrote: | | It is not only my opinion fella. I was not attacking you for simply posting this thread but for many of the threads you've posted. You didn't start this thread to discuss Judy wood's ideas, it was to discuss your insane theory that there were bombs set off as a smokescreen for your beam weapon. Utter drivvel. I tell you what, let's both go and see a shrink together and see who gets sectioned. |
Yes the smokescreen theory is mine, but the main ones that you and others want banned are no planes and beam weapons.
And how can you say something is drivel when you or anybody else for that matter has been unable to offer an explanation for all the bombs that went off prior to the main demolition. You only need to press the plunger once. |
The smokescreen theory is nonsense, there is another thread that you started for Judy Wood's theory, I shan't waste my time there. I'm nopt calling for a banning of theories just trying to get the posters of these to realise the problems they cause. Never are questions answered so you should expect people not to take them seriously. If you think they are robust theories then why not post them in Critics Corner.
Re why don't offer explanations as to why bombs went off? Firstly, we still need to conclusivel prove that bombs went off before assuming they did and speculating. This is no better than teh Commission Report methodology. Secondly, there is no need to speculate about anything as this makes us look like crazed loons. Stick to the facts about the absurdity of the official story is all we need to do.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Like many I was highly suspicious of the whole 'beam weapon' thing and still am. In fact I am quite prepared to acknowledge that the powdered concrete and fried cars/car parks, bathtub etc is convincing, BUT;
We had videos of melting metal, supports being cut at an angle, an expert with forensic proof of thermite/thermate etc etc etc - it makes no sense to simply either now forget this or say it happened to 'cover' the real method of collapse. The 'terrorists' could not have planted explosives, well, not enough to bring the buildings down. So if a beam weapon was used, what are the believers here now saying about the explosives aspect - it didn't happen, or it is this daft 'smokescreen' idea?
It makes no logical sense whatsoever to plant explosives AND use a beam weapon, the government are implicated for the very reason of all the 'evidence' that we have discussed here. You'd simply want to bring the buildings down with minimal comeback, not create lots of potential evidence to get the finger pointing. So if you had something like a weapon that could do it unseen from space, would you really do something that then ultimately highlights you as the perp??
So please, can an 'explosives now beam weapon' convert just bring me into line with their current thinking as to the shift regarding controlled demolition with explosives and how this ties together with the weapon from space? Have they dismissed explosives totally?
_________________
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 |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | And how can you say something is drivel when you or anybody else for that matter has been unable to offer an explanation for all the bombs that went off prior to the main demolition. You only need to press the plunger once. |
My two answers:
1) Where do you expect 2million tons of rubble to go if explosives are not set off in the basement?
2) Don't you think that if the Govt wanted people to be convinced that the planes brought down the towers, they needed a time delay? Obviously the whole scenario wasn't quite convincing enough.
| andyb wrote: | | Stick to the facts about the absurdity of the official story is all we need to do. |
I agree wholeheartedly.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | And how can you say something is drivel when you or anybody else for that matter has been unable to offer an explanation for all the bombs that went off prior to the main demolition. You only need to press the plunger once. |
My two answers:
1) Where do you expect 2million tons of rubble to go if explosives are not set off in the basement?
2) Don't you think that if the Govt wanted people to be convinced that the planes brought down the towers, they needed a time delay? Obviously the whole scenario wasn't quite convincing enough.
| andyb wrote: | | Stick to the facts about the absurdity of the official story is all we need to do. |
I agree wholeheartedly.
|
Most of the rubble was converted to very fine dust - one of the key points that Judy Woods makes - this would not have happened with thermite or thermate
You still haven't answered the question about the delay - your point about where would the rubble go is puzzling - the rubble would fall to the ground
You only need to press the plunger once
So why didn't they have the plane crashes (real or otherwise) followed by the demolition 1 hour later - why all the other bombs in between |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
The type of concrete used was set out for you yesterday, so it is not a case of needing to push the plunger once with you. It appears that only you think the bombs were a diversion(and one that would still show governemnt involvement, so the stupidest tactic ever) so you explain why they were a diversion. Where is your proof there were bombs? Explosions yes, bombs is speculation until there is evidence.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 keeps asking;
| Quote: | You only need to press the plunger once
So why didn't they have the plane crashes (real or otherwise) followed by the demolition 1 hour later - why all the other bombs in between. |
This is like asking, 'Why is Dale Winton famous?' - there is no answer. How can you keep labouring this point - you have no clue why, no-one else does - we can only speculate.
Produce evidence of 'bombs' other than 'Yes I was there, I heard a loud bang' or drop it. Falling masonry, exploding cars or gas all negate definitive 'bombs'.
As for pressing the plunger more than once, if bombs were used, it may have been a multi-stage process, again we don't know.
I see everyone steers clear of my question posed four posts ago. I do acknowledge it is difficult to address though.
_________________
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 |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Garcon Warrior wrote: | | 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? |
Hello Garcon
You ask why they would have the planes theory knowing full well it would be discredited?
My take on this is that the best way to hide the lie that it was a beam weapon is to sandwich it between something that resembles the truth.
So you go for a lie initially knowing full well that it will be discovered and you hope that the public buy the second lie that it was controlled demolition with conventional explosives because that's what it looked like.
So to carry out the plan - you have the planes (real or otherwise) followed by bombs going off prior to demolition - reported by Willie Rodriguez, fireman, Journalists and Joe Public. All these bombs (or sounds of bombs going off earlier) was to ensure that the planes theory was discredited.
Rigging up the entire building with explosives would have been a huge risk
it would have took weeks to do and keeping that secret would be very difficult. EG All maintenance of the building would need to be stopped for the entire period the building was being rigged - this as far as I know did not happen.
Think about it - if the technology exists it would be a whole lot easier to bring the building down with the beam weapon because there would be no chance of being caught planting explosives and having 911 scuppered.
It would also be a whole lot easier and again minimise the risk of things going wrong by using ghost planes.
So my take is no planes and a beam weapon, people ask for proof of the beam weapon - we ain't got it but the basic technology behind it has been under development for over 50 years. So what this boils down to with the beam weapon is not do they exist - (we know they do on a small scale) but have they got on powerful enough to inflict the damage on 911.
The damage to all those cars tells me that it sure wasn't caused by thermite or thermate (does anybody have a case that it was?) it must have been caused by a weapon we have never seen
Simple innit - stating the obvious |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You ask why they would have the planes theory knowing full well it would be discredited? |
How so?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| andyb wrote: | | Quote: | | You ask why they would have the planes theory knowing full well it would be discredited? |
How so? |
Because they knew it would all be filmed on television - and people report what they see -- Dan Rather said it looks like a controlled demolition
They knew there would be on the scene journalists getting testimony from Joe Public reporting bombs going off.
And that's exactly what happened - as they planned it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | andyb wrote: | | Quote: | | You ask why they would have the planes theory knowing full well it would be discredited? |
How so? |
Because they knew it would all be filmed on television - and people report what they see -- Dan Rather said it looks like a controlled demolition
They knew there would be on the scene journalists getting testimony from Joe Public reporting bombs going off.
And that's exactly what happened - as they planned it. |
step into the real world at some point and you will see that the huge majority do not buy the CD story, I would hardly say it has been discredited. If you think you can discredit it effectively please do so.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | andyb wrote: | | Quote: | | You ask why they would have the planes theory knowing full well it would be discredited? |
How so? |
Because they knew it would all be filmed on television - and people report what they see -- Dan Rather said it looks like a controlled demolition
They knew there would be on the scene journalists getting testimony from Joe Public reporting bombs going off.
And that's exactly what happened - as they planned it. |
NO! You keep avoiding the obvious - the terrorists could not have planted the explosives in the WTC - WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT CHAMPION A STORY THAT IMPLICATES THEMSELVES?????
Stop waffling.
_________________
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 |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | andyb wrote: | | Quote: | | You ask why they would have the planes theory knowing full well it would be discredited? |
How so? |
Because they knew it would all be filmed on television - and people report what they see -- Dan Rather said it looks like a controlled demolition
They knew there would be on the scene journalists getting testimony from Joe Public reporting bombs going off.
And that's exactly what happened - as they planned it. |
NO! You keep avoiding the obvious - the terrorists could not have planted the explosives in the WTC - WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT CHAMPION A STORY THAT IMPLICATES THEMSELVES?????
Stop waffling. |
That's a very good question Telly - here's my answer.
My answer is that the present Republican administration have been set up as the fall guys by the puppeteers - they get the blame - move in the Democrats and on with the game to achieve their ultimate objective.
As you know sacrificing the lives of US presidents is something they are well accustomed to - so why would you be surprised if they sacrifice the entire administration? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Garcon Warrior
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 93
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok to say that the American forces have technology beyond what we have seen I can agree with that. If you believe in 9/11 was orchastrated by the PTB for there own finacial advantages or world domination then you have to keep an open mind for anything else that comes along.
There are two points I have to bring up TTWSU3.
| Quote: | | So you go for a lie initially knowing full well that it will be discovered and you hope that the public buy the second lie that it was controlled demolition with conventional explosives because that's what it looked like. |
But why would you not just do the perfect crime why leave any seeds of doubt in the publics mind? I do not understand why in the world the people who planned this thought well we will throw in one lie that can easily be debunked and then another that we will pretend is the real conspiracy.
Rigging up the entire building with explosives would have been a huge risk
it would have took weeks to do and keeping that secret would be very difficult. EG All maintenance of the building would need to be stopped for the entire period the building was being rigged - this as far as I know did not happen.
What about the floors that were cleared out and witnesses hearing machine work going on on the empty floors prior to 9/11. And the security service that was in control of the wtc until 10/11 with the Bush connection within that security service. It would suggest to me that they had all the right people in place to rig the world trade center with explosives if they did so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If WTC was rigged up with explosives - then they would have been in place days if not weeks prior to 911
All it would take would be one maintenance engineer or one office worker to notice something out of the ordinary - and the plan would be scuppered.
This was a building with thousands of people in it - the chances of being sussed would be high |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Garcon Warrior
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 93
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ok TTWSU3 my first points been answered it is to blame the Republican administration. But do you think if 9/11 comes out and have found a government to have killed its own people that there still will be Republican/Demorcrat Conservative/Labour partys anymore c'mon you can think about beam weapons but not of what would happen socially if the US government are complicit in these crimes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Garcon - you are right on the button there but for the wrong reasons
To further their plan for world government the perps want a civil war in the USA - YES 911 is becoming public knowledge - thats why Halliburton are building all these prisons to lock up the protesting truthers and have a fully fledged police state.
There will be anarchy in the USA - the perps are doing everything in their power to initiate this - they are destroying the middle classes - Mexicans are coming over the border and working for $5 an hour, for the first time in history living standards in the USA are falling
They are dumming down the population - 44 compulsory mercury laced injections for school kids to lower IQs, fluoride in the water, chemtrails, all the goodness stripped out of the food and more.
The USA is heading for bankrupcy their will be a stock market crash in the next few years, property prices are already falling rapidly - this is what they want |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps we should chip in and get a bulk order of tin foil hats so we are protected from the mind altering beams from space.
Too late for some it seems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 kinda responded;
| Quote: | | To further their plan for world government the perps want a civil war in the USA - YES 911 is becoming public knowledge - thats why Halliburton are building all these prisons to lock up the protesting truthers and have a fully fledged police state. |
If/when America implodes due to The Truth about 9/11 being proved beyond reasonable doubt, can you honestly see there being anybody in a position to arrest and imprison anyone else?
The police force, the armed forces, judges, prison staff, you name it, are just people like Joe Public - they too will have been lied to. Do you honestly believe that any kind of law and order would prevail? If I was a serving police officer in such a scenario - I would be at home protecting my family, not tooling the streets stopping looters. We are not talking about a few herberts throwing bricks, this is a gun culture bristling with all kinds of high powered automatic weapons.
Anarchy means complete social breakdown - why would anyone wish to uphold any form of social order in the light of being lied to on such a huge scale? This wouldn't be about sacrificing an administration, it would mean the end of socially structured life as they know it.
If The Truth came out tomorrow, can you see the armed forces still doing 'their job' in Iraq - they'd be home the next day, sod that!
Prisons schmisons.
_________________
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 |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Telly
Your perception of what may happen - where everybody revolts would be great.
The problem is the perps are always a step ahead of us.
They will have their brainwashed police state "probably chipped" to round up all us dissidents, lock us up and throw away the key.
The problem we have is the corruption is everywhere, The Police, The Judiciary, The Media, The Big Corporations and the fuc king politicians.
Soon they will have control of the only thing that can stop them "The Alternative Media US" They will invent new crimes for Blogging and inciting dissent to government.
Don't think they can't - they're already doing it - listen to any of the radio talk shows and Joe Public believes all this sh it about Moslem terrorists blowing up planes over the Atlantic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: |
You still haven't answered the question about the delay - your point about where would the rubble go is puzzling - the rubble would fall to the ground
|
What I am saying is that they can't press the plunger as soon as the "planes" hit. If they want people to believe that the fuel weakened the structure causing it collapse then there has to be a delay.
The basement of the WTC consisted of 7 floors over a very large area. That is a lot of volume, enough space to put the majority of the steel, rubble and concrete. If the basement hadn't been weakened, it would have been a much higher pile than was present. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: |
You still haven't answered the question about the delay - your point about where would the rubble go is puzzling - the rubble would fall to the ground
|
What I am saying is that they can't press the plunger as soon as the "planes" hit. If they want people to believe that the fuel weakened the structure causing it collapse then there has to be a delay.
The basement of the WTC consisted of 7 floors over a very large area. That is a lot of volume, enough space to put the majority of the steel, rubble and concrete. If the basement hadn't been weakened, it would have been a much higher pile than was present. |
So what is the problem with having a higher pile of rubble? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alwun
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 282
Location: london
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject: missing a link |
|
|
Help. This afternoon I followed a link on a thread here to a short Google vid of a 911 witness insisting that there was an explosion but no plane at second hit. If anyone can direct me to the link I'd be very grateful.
cheers Al.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | If WTC was rigged up with explosives - then they would have been in place days if not weeks prior to 911
All it would take would be one maintenance engineer or one office worker to notice something out of the ordinary - and the plan would be scuppered.
This was a building with thousands of people in it - the chances of being sussed would be high |
Strange how you don't apply this logic to NPT. So they wouldn't plant explosives because they might be discovered by a handfull of engineers, but they would use cartoon planes because...
Wait. Perhaps they planted evidence of cartoon planes to hide the REAL TRUTH? Delaying the explosion, altering the plane flight paths in some videos, planting plane parts and taking photos of them in different positions..
No planes is a fiendish cover for the real trick of the day. It wasn't September 11th!
Now, who do we speak to about this exciting new evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: missing a link |
|
|
| alwun wrote: | Help. This afternoon I followed a link on a thread here to a short Google vid of a 911 witness insisting that there was an explosion but no plane at second hit. If anyone can direct me to the link I'd be very grateful.
cheers Al.. |
I'm not sure which one it would be, but it should be findable in your internet history list for today Alwun. Probably under video.google +title. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
