View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: ideas for a top three proveable crimes, suggestions please |
|
|
I'm looking for a consensus on the top three crimes of 911 that we can PROVE.
I suggest that if we can reach agreement on the most basic level it presents a united movement that is easier for newcomers to join in with.
Anything will be considered, just needs to be beyond reasonable doubt and have multiple, verifiable sources.
This doesn't mean that I'm trying to narrow the field of overall research, just that proffessional organisations don't do there washing in public!.
Thanks for your time, poll will go up in a week if there are enough responses to provide 3 options. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
QuitTheirClogs Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ishaar Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006 Posts: 232 Location: uk
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Surely..demolition of world trade centre 1, 2, and 7. Falling at near free fall speed, we don't need any wild theories here, physical laws demand some process of demolition other than collapse resulting from impact of planes and oxygen starved fire. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks guys, thats the kind of thing I'm after.
Can we PROVE that they fell at freefall?, if so then it's a good un. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gareth Suspended
Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 398
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
how about any of the 11 features of controlled demolition that would occur if, and only if, controlled demolition occured?
1. Sudden Onset
2. Straight Down
3. Almost free-fall speed
4. Total collapse
5. Sliced Steel
6. Pulverization of concrete and other materials
7. Dust clouds
8. Horizontal Ejections
9. Demolition rings
10. Molten Steel
11. Sounds produced by explosives
the demolition of the towers is the lie that underpins all other lies and most folks have quite a high regard for science _________________ www.truthaction.org/forum
www.wearechange.org.uk |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alfsevic Minor Poster
Joined: 05 Jan 2007 Posts: 82
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the 18 September 2001
Christie Whitman said. "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breath and their water is safe to drink."
A lie causing the illness and premature death of thousands of new yorkers.
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alfsevic wrote: | On the 18 September 2001
Christie Whitman said. "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breath and their water is safe to drink."
A lie causing the illness and premature death of thousands of new yorkers.
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm |
Definately one of the more disgusting parts of the overall story, but already explained by the beurocratic and administrative c*ck-up route and we can't prove otherwise to my knowledge (which is limited).
It needs to be something beyond denial.
If I'm wrong please let me know, would love to get them for this shameful act. But it needs to be a VERY straight forward explanation to work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gareth wrote: | how about any of the 11 features of controlled demolition that would occur if, and only if, controlled demolition occured?
1. Sudden Onset
2. Straight Down
3. Almost free-fall speed
4. Total collapse
5. Sliced Steel
6. Pulverization of concrete and other materials
7. Dust clouds
8. Horizontal Ejections
9. Demolition rings
10. Molten Steel
11. Sounds produced by explosives
the demolition of the towers is the lie that underpins all other lies and most folks have quite a high regard for science |
Your right there, they do. Half of that list is disputed though, and thats not to say that your wrong about them. it's Just that, to a newcomer, you would have to explain at some length the reasons to believe them and at the moment they don't prove collusion beyond doubt.
If you excuse the pun, i'm looking for concrete info (tehe) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kbo234 Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fred Jones II wrote: | Can we PROVE that they fell at freefall?, if so then it's a good un. |
We can go to the NIST report and take the official time of collapse of the South Tower........9 seconds (obviously an estimation, but it is THEIRS)
The height of the South Tower was 417 metres. Using g=9.81 ms2 and the standard formula s=1/2at2 (half a times t squared) we get time for an object free-falling through this distance with no air resistance to be:
t=9.22 seconds
This proves that the South Tower collapsed at free-fall speeds without resistance of any kind being offered by the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel that constituted the building as it collapsed through itself. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kbo234 wrote: | Fred Jones II wrote: | Can we PROVE that they fell at freefall?, if so then it's a good un. |
We can go to the NIST report and take the official time of collapse of the South Tower........9 seconds (obviously an estimation, but it is THEIRS)
The height of the South Tower was 417 metres. Using g=9.81 ms2 and the standard formula s=1/2at2 (half a times t squared) we get time for an object free-falling through this distance with no air resistance to be:
t=9.22 seconds
This proves that the South Tower collapsed at free-fall speeds without resistance of any kind being offered by the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel that constituted the building as it collapsed through itself. |
Thanks KBO, looks like thats the first one on the list then.
If there are any arguements against this fact THAT HOLD WATER can they please be posted in this thread.
I'm trying to avoid a free-for-all in this thread so please keep contrary posts to this fact very short. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Busker Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 374 Location: North East
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. The collapse of WTC 7. Not a raging inferno. Symmetrical collapse. Near freefall speed.
2. Initial pictures of Pentagon. No physical sign of the impact of engines, wings or tail section. The apparent bunny-hop over the cable spools on the lawn. (Forget about hole size etc.)
3. Explosions inside the twins. Testimony of William Rodriguez to that effect. Video of three fireman talking, boom, boom, boom down the floors as though they planned to take it out etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 988
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Someone on webcameron claimed that the petrol station and Sheraton Hotel CCTV footage of whatever hit the pentagon 911 has been released in the past 2 weeks under US FOI...and guess what? though they were grainy images they clearly showed NO Boeing 757 crashing into the said defence facility! Surely this is a piece of the official CT jigsaw that does not fit and disproves the rest?
Snowy Grouch's Pentagon research is pretty damning I would have thought. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alasdair wrote: | 1. The collapse of WTC 7. Not a raging inferno. Symmetrical collapse. Near freefall speed.
2. Initial pictures of Pentagon. No physical sign of the impact of engines, wings or tail section. The apparent bunny-hop over the cable spools on the lawn. (Forget about hole size etc.)
3. Explosions inside the twins. Testimony of William Rodriguez to that effect. Video of three fireman talking, boom, boom, boom down the floors as though they planned to take it out etc. |
1: Diesel (I know, I know)
2: Doesn't prove collusion, just suspicious.
£: Rodriguez is 1 man, firefighters said "like" bombs. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | Someone on webcameron claimed that the petrol station and Sheraton Hotel CCTV footage of whatever hit the pentagon 911 has been released in the past 2 weeks under US FOI...and guess what? though they were grainy images they clearly showed NO Boeing 757 crashing into the said defence facility! Surely this is a piece of the official CT jigsaw that does not fit and disproves the rest?
Snowy Grouch's Pentagon research is pretty damning I would have thought. |
1: "someone on webcameron said" doesn't sound good does it?. Plus they (government) have the final evidence on the subject,(cctv) so it can be explained, after all they've known the absolute truth for 5 years, plenty of time to work out excuses way into our future.
Will check out snowygrouch's research though, sounds fascinating.
2: What's to stop them getting industrial light and magic to do the fx in any future version and drop a plane in?. If we put this forward as a definate crime it's too easily rubbished, and they still have the "we didn't want to scare the public by telling them that al queda has missiles" defense.
3: therefore, even if proved it doesn't prove collusion by the government.
Thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 988
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fred Jones II wrote: | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | Someone on webcameron claimed that the petrol station and Sheraton Hotel CCTV footage of whatever hit the pentagon 911 has been released in the past 2 weeks under US FOI...and guess what? though they were grainy images they clearly showed NO Boeing 757 crashing into the said defence facility! Surely this is a piece of the official CT jigsaw that does not fit and disproves the rest?
Snowy Grouch's Pentagon research is pretty damning I would have thought. |
1: "someone on webcameron said" doesn't sound good does it?. Plus they (government) have the final evidence on the subject,(cctv) so it can be explained, after all they've known the absolute truth for 5 years, plenty of time to work out excuses way into our future.
Will check out snowygrouch's research though, sounds fascinating.
2: What's to stop them getting industrial light and magic to do the fx in any future version and drop a plane in?. If we put this forward as a definate crime it's too easily rubbished, and they still have the "we didn't want to scare the public by telling them that al queda has missiles" defense.
3: therefore, even if proved it doesn't prove collusion by the government.
Thanks |
It was only an anecdotal suggestion in first draft sarky ! Snowygrouch is on the credits of the excellent film 'Pandora's Black Box' available on thePilots for 9/11 truth site, google video and youtube if you didn't know that already.
I've always thought a good question is Can you see a boeing 757 crashing into that obscure side of the Pentagon 9/11 from the CCTV footage the US government were forced to release under FOI by the organisation 'Judicial Watch' YES OR NO? this is, of course, a rhetorical question, you clearly cannot see a Boeing 757 unlike the answer the corporate state media tried to brainwash us with when it was released last year, additionally the 'defendant' changed his story, the Pentagon originally claiming there were NO CCTV images of the "attack" 9/11, always suspicious that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[/quote]
It was only an anecdotal suggestion in first draft sarky !
Sorry
It still doesn't prove that they were involved in planning, just coverup which can be justified. (Our enemy managed to get a missile near the pentagon!!)
We really need stuff that can be proved without any further evidence, as anything that they still hold part of is unsound.
Much better to get them for proved crimes (like the war) and then investigate 911 without them still being in power to stop us.
Once again, sorry for the sarcasm. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 988
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was only an anecdotal suggestion in first draft sarky !
Sorry
It still doesn't prove that they were involved in planning, just coverup which can be justified. (Our enemy managed to get a missile near the pentagon!!)
We really need stuff that can be proved without any further evidence, as anything that they still hold part of is unsound.
Much better to get them for proved crimes (like the war) and then investigate 911 without them still being in power to stop us.
Once again, sorry for the sarcasm.[/quote]
Their missile defence system failed to intercept an 'Al Quaeda missile' or an 'Al Quaeda hijacked boeing 757', which is the most embarassing? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[/quote]
Their missile defence system failed to intercept an 'Al Quaeda missile' or an 'Al Quaeda hijacked boeing 757', which is the most embarassing?[/quote]
Embarassment requires a sense of shame.
The government is not a person.
No sense of shame.
(common mistake)
The point I was (and am) tryin to make is that even if everything pans out in that story, it doesn't prove that they did it.
The problem is that the Law isn't cumalative, you can't add the fact that may have covered up the pentagon attcack to the fact that they may have covered up wtc7 etc.
It has to be one crime, proveable beyond reasonable doubt, that actually proves they were complicit in the planning and execution, not just the coverup.
No shame= no problem lying again if they are caught out on a lie (downing street memo).
So it has to be more than catching them lying, as we've done that hundreds of times before.
You might not believe it, but they could spin the pentagon in there sleep.
Last edited by Fred Jones II on Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rodin Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006 Posts: 2224 Location: UK
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 988
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fred Jones II wrote: | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
It was only an anecdotal suggestion in first draft sarky !
Sorry
It still doesn't prove that they were involved in planning, just coverup which can be justified. (Our enemy managed to get a missile near the pentagon!!)
We really need stuff that can be proved without any further evidence, as anything that they still hold part of is unsound.
Much better to get them for proved crimes (like the war) and then investigate 911 without them still being in power to stop us.
Once again, sorry for the sarcasm. |
Their missile defence system failed to intercept an 'Al Quaeda missile' or an 'Al Quaeda hijacked boeing 757', which is the most embarassing? |
Embarassment requires a sense of shame.
The government is not a person.
No sense of shame. (common mistake)
The point I was (and am) tryin to make is that even if everything pans out in that story, it doesn't prove that they did it.
The problem is that the Law isn't cumalative, you can't add the fact that may have covered up the pentagon attcack to the fact that they may have covered up wtc7 etc.
It has to be one crime, proveable beyond reasonable doubt, that actually proves they were complicit in the planning and execution, not just the coverup.[/quote
Sorry, maybe i'm being dense, how does an Al quaeda missile attack on the Pentagon fit in with the 911 timeline of the flight 77 alleged hijack at such and such a time, Cheney saying the order remains the same, the lamp poles popping out and that shiny bit of debris that kept turning up in pictures, there must be government complicity commensurate with all the above, shurely given that CCTV footage released under FOI? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gareth Suspended
Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 398
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fred Jones II wrote: | gareth wrote: | how about any of the 11 features of controlled demolition that would occur if, and only if, controlled demolition occured?
1. Sudden Onset
2. Straight Down
3. Almost free-fall speed
4. Total collapse
5. Sliced Steel
6. Pulverization of concrete and other materials
7. Dust clouds
8. Horizontal Ejections
9. Demolition rings
10. Molten Steel
11. Sounds produced by explosives
the demolition of the towers is the lie that underpins all other lies and most folks have quite a high regard for science |
Your right there, they do. Half of that list is disputed though, and thats not to say that your wrong about them. it's Just that, to a newcomer, you would have to explain at some length the reasons to believe them and at the moment they don't prove collusion beyond doubt.
If you excuse the pun, i'm looking for concrete info (tehe) |
disputed? you can't dispute the laws of conservation of momentum, gravity etc. these are foundational laws of physics and therefore the sort of principles even a child can grasp. you don't get more concrete than that. good luck wasting your time _________________ www.truthaction.org/forum
www.wearechange.org.uk |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | Fred Jones II wrote: | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
It was only an anecdotal suggestion in first draft sarky !
Sorry
It still doesn't prove that they were involved in planning, just coverup which can be justified. (Our enemy managed to get a missile near the pentagon!!)
We really need stuff that can be proved without any further evidence, as anything that they still hold part of is unsound.
Much better to get them for proved crimes (like the war) and then investigate 911 without them still being in power to stop us.
Once again, sorry for the sarcasm. |
Their missile defence system failed to intercept an 'Al Quaeda missile' or an 'Al Quaeda hijacked boeing 757', which is the most embarassing? |
Embarassment requires a sense of shame.
The government is not a person.
No sense of shame. (common mistake)
The point I was (and am) tryin to make is that even if everything pans out in that story, it doesn't prove that they did it.
The problem is that the Law isn't cumalative, you can't add the fact that may have covered up the pentagon attcack to the fact that they may have covered up wtc7 etc.
It has to be one crime, proveable beyond reasonable doubt, that actually proves they were complicit in the planning and execution, not just the coverup.[/quote
Sorry, maybe i'm being dense, how does an Al quaeda missile attack on the Pentagon fit in with the 911 timeline of the flight 77 alleged hijack at such and such a time, Cheney saying the order remains the same, the lamp poles popping out and that shiny bit of debris that kept turning up in pictures, there must be government complicity commensurate with all the above, shurely given that CCTV footage released under FOI? |
Your not being dense at all,you are being too smart.
I'm trying to say that even though the answers they'll give won't be good enough for us, they'll cloud the issue enough for the masses.
And as has been proven for the last 6 years running, that's all they have to do!.
I say that we learn from our mistakes and don't give them the option by not throwing every accusation at them. Just one blindingly good one that there is no way to "cloud over". If we are right, it's gotta be out there. But we've gotta prepare for the fact that we might not be able to find it.
Thats what this thread is for.
Now all we've gotta do is see if we're right.
So far it's all coverup, not planning. (regarding Bush&co that is) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
quote: "disputed? you can't dispute the laws of conservation of momentum, gravity etc. these are foundational laws of physics and therefore the sort of principles even a child can grasp. you don't get more concrete than that. good luck wasting your time Smile"
True, but if you read the initial post:
1:we don't hold the evidence, they do. (steel, bodies)
2:It doesn't prove that the government were complicit.
3:Bush has already said that mohamed atta placed bombs above a certain floor, so that excuse is in place. (no shame)
It seems you think I'm wasting my time, but I'm not trying to argue anyones theories, just to put into context what they mean in the big picture.
I'm not being awkward, I want to know what actual evidence we have for foreknowledge. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right on both items but:
1: confessions are not proof without a trial to verify them.
2: everybody that filmed it was there to document the event, and it did go on for long enough to grab a camera (as others did).
3: if you don't like America (and lots don't) you might dance with joy when it's attacked.
4: It doesn't prove complicity before the event.
5: 7/7 train times won't be introduced as evidence in a crime in another country four years before.
(just to clarify, I'm playing devils advocate here, I agree with you but I'm trying to second guess press/government answers based on events so far) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission about the military aide who asked Cheney if the orders still stand.
Mineta has this happening before the Pentagon event
The 9/11 Commission Report has this happening after 10.00 am _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mark Gobell wrote: | CEO of Odigo on record stating that staff received email warning of 9/11 |
Unless he has physical proof that is date verified it's no more valid than the kids nearby saying it was being talked about "weeks before". And then it only proves that somebody was paranoid enough to warn him, I've been warned by email about bird flu, bombs, iran,global warming....
If any of them happen does that mean the guy who sent me it did it?
The stand-down order is a good one, however it wouldn't take much for him to be "mistaken" in all the chaos when re questioned. It's still only one guy with little evidence (that we can get to anyway).
Plus as a serving officer if he was ordered to say he recieved the order, he would not be able to refuse it without being prosecuted, which means he's compromised in some respects.
I'm getting depressed by this, we need actual proof. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CEO of Odigo on record stating that staff received email warning of 9/11
Reports of eye witness seeing tail number N591UA of UA93 still in use after 9/11
Steven Jones Thermite / Thermate residues.
ST911 Seismic evidence of explosions before WTC impact.
AA77 & AA11 missing flight data on BTS database
William Rodriguez & NYFD & other first responder's eye witness evidence of explosions. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fred Jones II wrote: | Mark Gobell wrote: | CEO of Odigo on record stating that staff received email warning of 9/11 |
Unless he has physical proof that is date verified it's no more valid than the kids nearby saying it was being talked about "weeks before". And then it only proves that somebody was paranoid enough to warn him, I've been warned by email about bird flu, bombs, iran,global warming....
If any of them happen does that mean the guy who sent me it did it?
The stand-down order is a good one, however it wouldn't take much for him to be "mistaken" in all the chaos when re questioned. It's still only one guy with little evidence (that we can get to anyway).
Plus as a serving officer if he was ordered to say he recieved the order, he would not be able to refuse it without being prosecuted, which means he's compromised in some respects.
I'm getting depressed by this, we need actual proof. |
The CEO is on record as saying that an employee received a warning. This is not proof of anything, other than an employee did receive a warning. So, it needs investigating.
Mineta's testimony is rock solid proof that either he or the 9/11 Commission is lying.
The only rock solid proof of the event that cannot be disproved is the collapse times of the three buildings.
Do the eye witness accounts of explosions qualify as proof ? _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fred Jones II Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Oop North
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mark Gobell wrote: | CEO of Odigo on record stating that staff received email warning of 9/11
Reports of eye witness seeing tail number N591UA of UA93 still in use after 9/11
Steven Jones Thermite / Thermate residues.
ST911 Seismic evidence of explosions before WTC impact.
AA77 & AA11 missing flight data on BTS database
William Rodriguez & NYFD & other first responder's eye witness evidence of explosions. |
Mark,you must be getting some sense of what sort of evidence I'm looking for from my previous answers. Do I have to go through all of them, or can you-step up and do it for me before posting.
It's just occured to me that we could be in a position soon where the world believes Bush/isreali's/lizards did it, and conspiracy theorists know that he didn't. So the smart guys and girls will still be made to feel like a fringe group. Still.
That doesn't mean you should give up though, I was just expecting something a bit more likely to lead charges being brought.
The stuff so far is only good for changing public opinion, not actual proof. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fred Jones II wrote: | 3:Bush has already said that mohamed atta placed bombs above a certain floor, so that excuse is in place. (no shame) |
Bush hasn't said any such thing.
He made a reference to terrorists placing bombs in high buildings.
He did not mention Atta.
He did not mention the WTC. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|