| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: Indubitably belt, braces and bits of string. |
 |
|
Fascinating to see that Indubitably has now solved the problem of what brought down the twin towers; if I have it right it took explosives behind false walls to blow out airliner-sized holes in the side of the buildings, a secretly developed and still unseen directed energy weapon of enormous power to turn the top floors into dust, more demolition explosives to knock down the bottom sections, slow flying missiles shaped liked helicopters for some other purpose, the faking of planes on to every camera pointing at the towers (except the ones they missed on the opposite side from where the plane hit the South tower) and the distribution of airplane debris around the streets. The disposal of the actual planes and faking of calls, would be easy, of course, and it was no doubt just a lucky coincidence that 19 Arabs were on board who could be blamed.
Whoever thought over-complicated plans were bound to go wrong? This one worked perfectly, twice over! And they would have got away with it without the brave efforts of 911researchers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think he's on your side tbh (consciously or unconsciously - i'm not sure if he really believes all this stuff). and you forgot that they "planted the squibs"....
if you want to discuss his evidence with him, all I can say is "good luck".... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Following the logic of TvF, I'm surprised it hasn't been proposed that all images including the 'film' of the 'holes', the 'film' of the 'squibs', the 'film' of 'people standing in the plane shaped holes'. All of it faked and created in SFX studio.
Don't get me wrong. Personally I believe there are some very strange anomolies surrounding the TV coverage from that day and I keep an open mind, but explaining the holes away is a biggie for TvF proponents |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: Re: Indubitably belt, braces and bits of string. |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Fascinating to see that Indubitably has now solved the problem of what brought down the twin towers; if I have it right it took explosives behind false walls to blow out airliner-sized holes in the side of the buildings, a secretly developed and still unseen directed energy weapon of enormous power to turn the top floors into dust, more demolition explosives to knock down the bottom sections, slow flying missiles shaped liked helicopters for some other purpose, the faking of planes on to every camera pointing at the towers (except the ones they missed on the opposite side from where the plane hit the South tower) and the distribution of airplane debris around the streets. The disposal of the actual planes and faking of calls, would be easy, of course, and it was no doubt just a lucky coincidence that 19 Arabs were on board who could be blamed.
Whoever thought over-complicated plans were bound to go wrong? This one worked perfectly, twice over! And they would have got away with it without the brave efforts of 911researchers. |
In my opinion the Pentagon and Shanksville 'no-plane' theories sound equally ludicrous, and these theories are much more widely embraced by the truth movement. In fact, I have more respect for the no-planers because at least their theory is consistent over the three crash-scenes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | Following the logic of TvF, I'm surprised it hasn't been proposed that all images including the 'film' of the 'holes', the 'film' of the 'squibs', the 'film' of 'people standing in the plane shaped holes'. All of it faked and created in SFX studio.
|
Yes, that seems at least as likely as explosives that blew the exterior IN rather than OUT which one might think would be more likely to happen.
Unless of course the window cleaners surreptiously planted limpet mines on the outside of the building to blow it inwards. I think the window cleaner angle needs to be investigated, and the failure of the so-called 911researchers to do so must lead to the suspicion that they are in fact shills and/or trolls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Indubitably belt, braces and bits of string. |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Fascinating to see that Indubitably has now solved the problem of what brought down the twin towers; if I have it right it took explosives behind false walls to blow out airliner-sized holes in the side of the buildings, a secretly developed and still unseen directed energy weapon of enormous power to turn the top floors into dust, more demolition explosives to knock down the bottom sections, slow flying missiles shaped liked helicopters for some other purpose, the faking of planes on to every camera pointing at the towers (except the ones they missed on the opposite side from where the plane hit the South tower) and the distribution of airplane debris around the streets. The disposal of the actual planes and faking of calls, would be easy, of course, and it was no doubt just a lucky coincidence that 19 Arabs were on board who could be blamed.
Whoever thought over-complicated plans were bound to go wrong? This one worked perfectly, twice over! And they would have got away with it without the brave efforts of 911researchers. |
In my opinion the Pentagon and Shanksville 'no-plane' theories sound equally ludicrous, and these theories are much more widely embraced by the truth movement. In fact, I have more respect for the no-planers because at least their theory is consistent over the three crash-scenes. |
of course you admire them more as i am sure they admire you more.
evidence dictates if there were planes at each site or not, not consistancy, each site was a seperate event in itself.
what ever the truth is, it dos'nt mean it has to be ALL one way.
its like presuming every solar system must be the same as that would be consistant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflecter
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 486
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker said;
| Quote: | | I think the window cleaner angle needs to be investigated, and the failure of the so-called 911researchers to do so must lead to the suspicion that they are in fact shills and/or trolls. |
The window cleaner angle on WTC7 was looked into by the scholars on their disbanded forum. They were seen rapidly ascending the building following the first plane overflying them and striking the N tower. The contractor was established but no further details as to who the two employees were that day. I don't think they had limpet mines, though persistent adherents of the 'garage door' hypothesis may believe so. Nice idea though  I haven't seen the window cleaner information anywhere else though, so I guess they are squeaky clean. 
_________________
The Peoples United Collective TPUC.ORG
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
