When is a Smoking Gun not a Smoking Gun?

Veronica

When considering 'smoking guns' it is essential to remember that a number of these have already been 'debunked' by the 9/11 Omission. Their answers may not satisfy you (in fact you may positively guffaw at many of them), but they satisfy the sheeple. And satisfying the sheeple is all that is important.

For example, 'War Games' was mentioned by the 9/11 Omission, and was written up as actually aiding the situation on 9/11. So 'goodbye smoking gun'.

Furthermore, by juggling and massaging the timeline, they managed to minimise, out of all existence, the 'Stand Down smoking gun'. So, goodbye to that one as well. (This may very well not have been a smoking gun anyway, since the only commercial airliners in involved on 9/11 were, possibly, UA 175 and UA 93).

The 'Put Options' were also dismissed by the 9/11 Omission as "following the money did not seem to be relevant". Furthermore they could argue that 'the market' is unpredictable, and there have been many historical instances of abnormalities - including even Stock market crashes, etc.

I repeat: Satisfying the sheeple is what is important. Satisfying YOU and I is not, necessarily, relevant.

Please do not forget that people like John Pilger, George Galloway, etc. swallowed this bs hook, line, and sinker.

So, what about 'Controlled Demolitions'? After all, the collapse of WTC7 was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Omission. Furthermore it is still causing a major headache for NIST, because they don't have any jet fuel to 'play' with. All they have are the tanks of diesel, which were many floors below those on fire. This is a major logistical problem, unless some occult magick or 'act of God' is thrown into the computer simulations. (Oh .. now I understand what that ACTOFGOD Verb is used for. Programmer's joke).

And, furthermore, NIST only takes the situation up to the point where the buildings were 'poised for collapse'. NIST is completely silent on 'the actual collapses themselves'.

So is this still our plain, unvarnished, smoking gun?

Actually, it may not be.

Since Controlled Demolitions has been largely ignored, it is 'open to future interpretation, without any prior commitment having been made'. (Damned clever, these Chinese).

Therefore Controlled Demolitions COULD be admitted in this way (I suggest for your consideration):

"Oh .. yes .. there were explosions that caused the buildings to collapse. After the WTC buildings were erected, it was thought prudent - in order to protect life and limb - to wire the buildings for demolition in case of emergencies, such as hurricanes, strong winds, etc. This was done in a perfectly safe manner, you may be assured. Fresh explosives, necessary to 'upgrade' the system, were introduced on a regular basis. You may rest assured that the methodology used was perfectly fail-safe. You may trust us on that. However, in view of the completely unforeseen events of 9/11, the impact of the planes, and the jet fuel, must have triggered off the charges. All we need is more money to come up with a better system for the future".

Of course, this would not satisfy you or I … but would it satisfy the sheeple? If people such as Pilger et al bought the 9/11 Omission, then the answer could very well be 'Yes'.

If it is, then goodbye smoking gun.

Tell me I'm wrong.

scar · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:47 am Post subject:

You're wrong. Razz

If they were all pre-set with explosives are you telling me the government is going to admit they set them off with people still inside?

No chance.

Ive heard this put forward as a possible theory by a debunker or 2 in the past. An admission such as that above could not be justified. There would be riots surely.

There are also other smoking guns besides the couple you mentioned.

And what, pray tell, do you suggest we do about this 'possibility'?
Expand the no-planes argument into the public mind as a major smoking gun so as to guard against it?
hmmmm hehe
Wink

Leiff · Trustworthy Freedom Fighter Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 509

If WTC1, 2 and 7 were wired up with explosives 'in order to protect life and limb', how many other skyscrapers are there wired up this way now?

Veronica · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject:

Hi scar,

Why were there no riots when the Hutton Report came out?

Why were there no riots when the Butler Report came out?

Why were there no riots over Forest Gate?

Why were there no riots when the 9/11 Omisson Report came out?

Why were there no riots when Bush announced the NSA spying?

Why are there no riots over Lebanon and Gaza?

I said I could be wrong. Do you completely deny me the possibility of being right?

Skeptic · Validated Poster Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 485

It's possible I guess.

But you'd assume that an admission such as this would change people's perspectives so much on what happened that they'd be driven to invextigate further and would identify other problems.

That said, the Mainstream media ability to manipulate should not be underestimated.

@Veronica - Hanworth is local to me - I work in Hounslow and have been putting 9/11 flyers on all the loop trains

Veronica · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject:

Leiff,

They can cover that by saying it was only the WTC which, as a project, used these principles ... and that that is another reason why all of the other buildings fell down ... or had to be demolished immediately afterwards.

I repeat (do I really have to?) People like Pilger, Fiske, Palast, Galloway, Chomsky et al bought this bs. You don't ... and I don't ... but we don't write newspaper columns.

You cannot look at this through your own eyes. Those of a sceptic. You MUST look at it through the eyes of sheeple ... AND THOSE IN THE MEDIA WHO WILL CLUTCH AT ANY STRAW TO KEEP THE LID ON THIS THING.

Ask yourself this:

The media is TOTALLY under control. Is it, or is it not?

The media is giving a bit of airtime to CDs. All totally on their terms. It is prefaced beforehand with stuff like "You really won't believe what is just coming up ... and interview with a University professor who seems to wear a tin-foil hat" (etc.) Well ...Is it, or is it not?

How come? Why?

Lawks 'a' mercy! If that doesn't light some alert lamps, I would like to know what does.

Veronica · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject:

Skeptic,

Hounslow is local to me!

I do a stall every Saturday between 11:00am and 1:00pm up by the Bell .. opposite the road with the Police Station.

Be nice to meet you. (Maybe you will discover that I'm not the ogre some people seem to think I am)

BTW: I just bought a printer that will print DVDs and (hopefully, when they reply to me) a 1:3 DVD Burner.

Leiff · Trustworthy Freedom Fighter Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 509

Veronica

Asbestos and explosives in the middle of New York?

Sounds a bit like a WMD to me.

Is this an acceptable explanation out in viewer land?

Mal Jones · Minor Poster Joined: 22 Jun 2006 Posts: 24

Veronica

You are right that “you must look at it through the eyes of ‘sheeple’” so it follows that the arguments should be presented accordingly.

I am a relative newcomer to the 9/11 malarkey and, I admit, I stumbled upon it while idly surfing. As an engineer, I became engaged by the demolition theory and by the WTC7 incongruities – now I’m largely convinced. However, if I had stumbled upon a website propounding the theory that the planes we all saw (admittedly on telly) hitting the buildings weren’t real or were holograms or whatever I would have had a hearty laugh and probably made that twiddling my finger by my head gesture for good measure. I certainly wouldn’t have given it a second thought.

Now I don’t know enough about the whole no-planes thing and I’m frankly too lazy to find out but it may well turn out to be the case. However, if you want to get people to look at the whole 9/11 thing, surely it’s better to ease them in with the ‘easy’ stuff.

I can sympathise with your position; if you are convinced of the no-planes theory this negativity must be a total piss-off.

scar · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject:

GEFBASS · Moderate Poster Joined: 05 Jun 2006 Posts: 107

Not sure if this relevent to this discussion. In my experience of highlighting just one aspect of raising doubt about 911 is this.

(this has worked for me)..

Firstly, play first 10 minutes of `911 eyewitness`(first explosion is heard through very loud sub woofers).
Secondly, (100% of the time for me), they (I mean `Sheeple`) say wooow what was that.
Thirdly, explain it was a bomb or the like, and add that the official explaination of the tower collapse(s) was from just fire caused by inpacting of planes (with the only `terrorists`being on the planes).
Fourthly, then pose the question "so what puzzles me is how did `bombs`get in the buildings? If the `terrorists` were in the planes?!"

I will admit this is not scientific, but then again nor was the official explaination.

I will say though that people I have highlighted this to may not have researched any more, nor spread the word ,( although a few have ),
but sure to say that it has changed their perceptions of 911.

It has given them enough doubt, and to me that makes more sense that when the proverbial snowball rolls their will be a, silent, but sizeable amount of people `Sheeple` all ready with that seed of doubt.
My hope is that when this all becomes more mainstream the `Sheeple`
will just be that `Sheeple` and join all the other `Sheeple` in the demand for an Independant Inquiry.

thank you for reading,

Geoff.

P.S. this is only my opinion but for me the above works...

Veronica · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject:

Hi scar & Mal,

Scar: No offence taken. I'm really just trying to make sure "We Don't Get Fooled Again" (imagine The Who singing that on Make Poverty History Live 8 ... the biggest financial con-job/stitch-up of 2005. [The biggest of all, being 7/7, of course]).

Mal ... I keep thumping this table ... most sheeple are thoroughly brainwashed into think that "their Government loves them, and it must be true if it was on telly, or in the papers". Your 'idle surfing' brought you into contact with this movement … and in that sense you are one of the seriously lucky ones.

Right, back to basics. As I've said above, a friend an I run a stall each Saturday. I intend to try the no-planes stuff out on the completely 'uninitiated'. I don't care if they think I'm a nutcase. I never have up till now.

Bear in mind that I will 'talk round to it'. Drop it in to the conversation after I have discussed how the media lies its head off night and day. C'mon … you have to agree … most sheeple know (in the back of their minds) that 'something isn't right'.

I knew this back in the '70s. I told my children. I just didn't know the details. I couldn't put my finger on it. (Now, of course, I know exactly 'why').

Back in 1995 I spent some time in the Isle of Wight. This was just after the Poll Tax era, when a lot of the media 'bias' became evident. In a pub, I was in conversation with a guy who was working as a chef in a restaurant, at one point. He was an ex-soldier, and had done tours of Northern Ireland. He told me this story.

He said "I know the media lies. I can prove it. During my time, my unit attended an incident in the Falls Road". He said that it didn't matter (for the purposes of his story) what the incident was actually about. He said "I know what happened, because I was there".

He said that when he returned home, on leave, his mother said "We recorded the 10:00pm news of that incident in the Falls Road … you know … the one you were involved in".

He said that he watched the recorded news item. He said that the description of the incident was completely wrong. What was described on telly was nothing like what had actually happened. He said that they had inserted TV footage of units that had never even been to Northern Ireland.

He said "Based on that, I don't believe what they show in the news".

That was in 1995.

I really believe that most people know that 'something is up'. They just simply do not know what to do about it. Who to talk to. Who to discuss it with.

Plus, of course, they have mortgages to pay, children to feed and clothe, and other bills to pay. All of this designed to keep them 'compliant', and never give them the time to discuss fundamental issues … like "What … exactly … is this War on Terror?".

Even feminism is a CIA invention. When I was young a couple could get married, and have a couple of children, and ONE of them (usually the man, yes) could earn enough to keep bread on the table and a roof over their heads.

Now what has happened is that women have been urged to 'take up their +real+ birthright' and go out to work.

Initially this was for 'pin money'. A little bit extra for extra comforts.

However, over the years (AND THIS WAS DESIGNED) it has now got to the stage where YOU MUST HAVE A PARTNER, in order to create a Joint Income, in order to obtain a mortgage.

And then the payments are so steep that constant arguments ensue. Thus the family is liable to break up.

I really think people 'feel all this' in their 'bones'.

I think that the time is right to put some 'informational flesh' on these bones. I do not think there was ever a better time.

Anyway … that's my tuppence-worth

Veronica · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:00 pm Post subject:

Leiff,

Sorry ... I forgot you.

Read this: http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/911TruthMilitary.htm

See what you think.

Veronica · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject:

GEFBASS,

Good idea. Any idea is good,

It is 'not having ideas' that is stupid.

dodgy · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject:

From a different perspective: The "sheeple" could also be very convinced by 80-odd videos being released showing a blatant 767 flying into the Pentagon.

The "sheeple" could also be quite convinced by quite grounded debunking of theories that (increasingly to me) seem like a small army of straw men, all waiting on the front line and ready to get shot down.

It is extremely naive to believe that those that are covering up the truth behind 9/11 are not trying to spread disinformation and hoaxes, with the aim of dividing the Truth Movement and providing most (if not all) of the cannon-fodder for which the Truth Movement could be smeared in the eyes of the "sheeple" (which is what has been happening).

And the "sheeple" might get a bit miffed at being called "sheeple" - "people" is a little more accurate, deriding people generally gets one nowhere.

GEFBASS · Moderate Poster Joined: 05 Jun 2006 Posts: 107

Fair comment Dodgy, `Sheeple` is a bit derisory, and yes their is an arguement for people to believe what they see on current mainstream media is what they are supposed to see. blah blah..( no pun intended )

I know, however, that because I am convinced of a major cover up/inside job, there are friends of mine that know I wouldn`t Bulls***.
them.

On a serious note though I know we can`t go in like bulls in a china shop with,
Police State,
NWO,
Demolition Job,
Insurance scams,
Pretext for war (although this is what makes some people I talk to join the dots as motive).

I do believe, though, that changing their perception is not a bad thing as they will talk to their good friends too.
IMO if you can change perceptions it can only be a good thing in the long run.

I have to say though on a personal note ( me that is ) , that until about 2 months ago I was a `Sleepy Sheepy` (sorry).

.........."Right that`s it write this out 100 times......"

`I must not call people Sheeple`
`I must not call people Sheeple`
`I must not call people Sheeple`
`I must not call people Sheeple`..........

Geoff.

Veronica · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject:

Dodgy:

dodgy · Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:06 am Post subject:

dodgy · Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:15 am Post subject:

Veronica · Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:26 am Post subject:

I keep saying: No offence taken. (Anyway we often write things one way ... and they get read a different way. That's life ... showing my age, again!).

I also think the various suggestions and reminiscences are a good thing. Being candid about things like this helps everybody.

Steven Collins · Minor Poster Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 85 Location: ESSEX

Veronica · Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:50 am Post subject:

Hi Steven,

Many thanks for pointing out that I had already covered the 'triggering of the pre-positioned charges' in my suggestion as to how they could defuse our 'smoking gun'.

In the heat of debate, I forgot to draw attention to that.

I think this also covers the aspects as to why people were not, necessarily evacuated/told to go back to work … or - at least - to some extent.

For two reasons. The people who were told to go back to work were those who were leaving the South Tower … which had not - at that time - been hit. (Also remember that we are talking about 'demolition charges' … designed to bring the building down into its own footprint … not explosives that would 'blow the building up' … killing everyone in the neighbourhood). The second reason is that - because the North Tower had received some kind of impact, which had simply left it standing for some while, one could 'be forgiven for assuming' pre-wired demolitions had withstood accidental triggering.

I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO RE-ITERATE, IN CASE A READER OF THIS HAS 'LOST THE THREAD' - I AM ACTING HERE AS DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. I am simply trying to work out what someone who, on the railings, could argue sufficient to convince the Pilgers & Palasts (etc.) of this world … people who seem PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE FLIMISIEST AND MOST TRANSPARENT bs.

With that in mind, please continue to criticise what I say as Devil's Advocate. If I can't 'duck and dive', then maybe CDs really is a smoking gun, after all.

(Although, I must add, that I am nothing like as clever as the people who did this … so even if I fail to duck & weave, it does not necessarily mean they couldn't dredge up something. After all, my welfare doesn't depend on promulgating bs, whereas theirs does).

Oh ... a couple of other things.

Going back to hurricanes & storms. Yes, true, the Towers were documented to withstand those things. However there is something called 'the unforseen'. What is to stop them calling up that one?

And, don't forget, Condi to 9/11 Omission: "We never thought of planes being flown into the Towers". 9/11 Omission to Condi: "Thank you VERY MUCH, Dr. Rice"

Yes ... you and I both know that logic is circular. That is precisely the kind of circular logic that causes the Pilgers to lose the thread.

Remember: The so-called HIV-AIDS 'virus' logic is circular. If you are HIV positive, then you are likely to get AIDS. If you get AIDS it is because you are HIV positive.

Whereas, IN TRUTH, HIV+ and HIV- are in exactly the same category as Rhesus+ and Rhesus- blood groups. In other words, MEANINGLESS.

If you go to your GP with (say) food poisoning, and you test HIV-, he tells you that you have food poisoning, and prescribes antibiotics.

If you go to your GP with food poisoning, and you test HIV+, he tells you that you have AIDS, and prescribes AZT.

AZT (a serious toxic poison) then kills you.

Think about that. Your GP will prescribe a poison to poison a poison. (Sod your own body!).

An almost identical argument can be made for cancer.

scar

Veronica · Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:28 am Post subject:

Scar,

With the greatest respect ... you are doing it AGAIN! You are being INTELLIGENT!

Your points are TOTALLY VALID to those who are INTELLIGENT.

Now. Answer me this.

How come the 9/11 Omission Report satisfied ANYONE AT ALL ... let alone the majority of the planet (it was a best-seller)?

It was the most cretinously stupid piece of garbage that was ever constituted on paper, using printer's ink. John Pilger said it was "A tremendously well-researched report" (or words to that effect).

No-planes: No ... I only came across it (in detail) in recent weeks. Or, perhaps that is better put: I only realised the FULL significance of it in recent weeks, after contact with Gerard Holmgren

scar · Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:10 am Post subject:

Veronica · Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:17 pm Post subject:

Hi scar,

Controlled Demolitions only has to be ‘worded away’ sufficient to satisfy the Pilgers, Palasts and Chomskys, etc.

It does NOT have to be watertight to do that. (As an ex-London Bus Driver) I could drive a bus through the 9/11 Omission Report … but it satisfied Pilger, Galloway, etc. etc.

With regard to no-planes, I’m still waiting for some commitment that I would not be wearing out my welcome by explaining it (on the State of the Union thread).

It has many ramifications. ‘No-planes’ = No jet fuel = Controlled Demolition by default. Consequently ‘no-planes’ COMPLEMENTS CDs … it BOOSTS CDs.

You can have CDs without ‘no planes’ … but you can’t have no planes without CDs. Therefore no planes is ‘win-win’.

This is why those who have researched it all out (Nico, Gerald, Rosalee, Morgan Reynolds) are so exasperated with the ‘planehuggers’.

As soon as any of the '9/11 Truth big-shots’ hears the title ‘No Planes’ they throw a wibbly wobbly, and storm off in a huff, calling us ‘delusional’ (or something worse, such as 'agents of disinfo').

They cannot even see that no planes SUPPORTS controlled demolitions i.e. it puts WTC1 & WTC2 on the same level as WTC7.

Now, if no planes were not true, then one could understand the derision. However, since it is true, and can be proved so, and it bolsters the whole 9/11 Truth Movement the exasperation against the planehuggers is immense.

Perhaps people here in the UK can understand this much at least?

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