First off, I'm working on putting together my thoughts as not to just keep throwing things around with no documentation. Finding the documentation you guys are looking for is requiring me to go back through things I read and watched years ago. That will take a bit. Understand I've accepted these things as fact for almost a decade, so it's hard to remember where along the line I've gotten what information. Since mainstream sources will not refer to the sources I would site, it becomes more challenging.
Also tying to answer multiple people is getting me a bit of anxiety. But I'm by no means running from your questions. Asking questions is the key to understanding- at least always has been for me. Now I don't expect many people will believe this, we all have our own perceptions of truth. However only one truth is correct. While I couldn't care less what a single one of you think-whether it be I'm nuts or whatever, I'd like to try and present things in as coherent a manner as I am capable. I feel it of extreme importance.
For now I will rebut with answers from my own logic (from the recent posts):
"-C'mon, if it weren't controlled demo, how did World Trade 7 fall?
Buildings aren't like they are depicted as an ideal place for the Hulk the jump and run across, some chunks from the initial impact probably fell on a critical point. "
To me, WTC7 has always been the smoking gun. There were 7 buildings at the WTC, 7 was the only one not hit by a plane to collapse. In fact it did not collapse until almost 5:30 that afternoon. There have been many cases of fires lasting for longer than that and not causing total collapse. IN fact the other buildings were all as close if not closer than WTC7 and did not collapse. I believe they are all still standing, though Im not sure if any were removed for the development of the freedom tower. Why WTC7 then?
-How did BBC report the towers fell before they actually did?
News media most always reports the worst possible scenario.
Cant really rebut that if that's how you want to interpret that. I don;t see how, since it seems to me the media hypes things that aren't big deals, but squashes things that are.
-Why did the owner of the WTC take out a huge insurance policy very shortly before 9/11? Coinicednce I suppose.
I'd have the building insured too. The building was also attacked in 1993.
Yes, Im aware. And yes, I would too. Just not taking out the policy a few weeks prior to the incident- source to follow.
-How is it two huge buildings (three if you count WTC7) just happened to neatly fall into their own footprint upon collapse?
That's how the physics work. The planes hit at a point where the insulation for the steel frame changed, below was the old wrap on insulation, above was spray-on insulation. The spray-on shredded, while the wrap on would have remained more or less intact. The metal was unprotected and melted from the very intense fire. The attack in 1993 indicates the bad guys had the blueprints for decades.
With all due respect that makes no sense. The buildings were compromised on one side more severely than the other. Have you ever watched a tree be cut down? They cut out a notch facing the direction they want it to fall. Then it falls that way cause it's not being held up on that side but it is on the other. If the buildings fell at an angle- even one of them- it'd make more sense. The damage was rather high up the building. The physics have been refuted by "qualified" people as much as they have been confirmed. -source to follow
-What about the reports of multiple explosions after the planes hit (as reported by several sources in the hours following the attack)
Lost of dangers stuff in high rises, look up the MSDS's (material safety data sheetS)
Makes sense in absence of the other points, so I wont really rebut other than to say why did all the reports disappear? I vividly remember watching the coverage on TV as things went down. There were many reports that were given at the time that went away. You may not see that as suspicious. I personally do. Again, interpretation I suppose.
-Big coincidence I suppose to that no US fighter jets were deployed too huh?
They were indeed deployed.
Yeah, several hours after the fact. Actually they just so happened to have off-shore training exercises that day. Hm. -again source to follow.
-Where was the plane that was supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania? Never seen a plane disintegrate into dust and tin foil before. Plenty of planes have crashed, I challenge anyone to find me another photo of one that looks like (nothing at all) the "plane crash" in PA.
Most crashes happen at low speed, not full throttle. Yes, 400 mph augured into the ground leaves dust and foil, and some red mist if there's people inside...that quickly turns dark brown.
Oh really? Do they put on the brakes typically before hitting the ground? No planes ever nose-dived into the ground? There was so little debris it's hard for me to believe anything actually crashed there.
-Why was it that the only video from apparently the only camera on the Pentagon seemingly missing a few frames. We see nothing, nothing, explosion.
And a missing plane, and missing people, and dust and foil at the 400mph Pentagon crash side.
Doesn't really answer the question. You mean to tell me at the Pentagon, the center of supposedly the worlds most powerful nation's army had one lousy security camera? And that lousy camera didn't capture a plane.
-Interesting how all media sources seemed to almost instantly know Bin Laden was to blame, within mere hours after the first plane hit. Great investigative reporting?
Good guess as any.
Sure I guess. Old Bush's family friend.
-Why was the term "false flag" removed from the dictionary after the attacks?
A Google search shows "false flag definition" in has about 2,220,000 references.
Last I checked the dictionary wasn't Google. Ill get more specifics on this point.
-Lets not mention all of the "telegraphed punches" (telling you what they are going to do) such as the Lone Gunmen episode, the Simpsons (depicting a plane crashing into what appears to be the twin towers), and the mid 90's card game Illuminati NWO (look up the card Terrorist Attack)?
The WTC had been attacked in 1993. It's an obvious target...
Ok but all of the above depicted a plane doing the damage. Very much in the same fashion as the actual attack. Not a van bomb as the 1993 attacks were reported to have been done by. Furthermore noted "conspiracist" William Cooper predicted a false flag even in June 2001 on a radio program. (Doubt that still exists anywhere ot can be found but Ill sure try) He was assassinated by county police in his home state a few months after the event.
Just how did these writers know? And since Hollywood writers are mostly liberals, why wouldn't they be screaming about it?
Another "liberal/conservative" dupe huh? It's like the WWE with good guys and bad guys- they play whatever role the script tells them. They pretend to fight and hate each other, but instead just get rich and laugh about it all afterwards. They are all working toward the same cause but since we (the people- the "useless eaters") are all different, they require different roles to deceive in different ways. But they are all lying and serving a common master.
The workers in the buildings are relevant because someone must have planted the explosives. Why did nobody say to their family "hey, a funny thing happened at work today, some guys came in and planted explosives against the frame of the building! Hope they don't blow us up, ha ha!"
Actually about a week or two prior to the attacks, the towers had extensive "elevator repairs" done (source to follow). Pretty easy to rig explosives in the elevator shafts which were all centrally located in the building, which would make for maximum effectiveness in bringing them down. Not very hard for "workers' to come in and "do repairs" with no one really questioning. Most people just wanna do their jobs and go home.
Loads of people went missing on those flights. Where did they go?
That idea saddens me greatly. I suspect to become either experiments or sacrifices.
The BBC are liberal, British, public funded media. They are not immune to making mistakes, but they are a million miles away from the tabloid press or commercial radio or digital television stations. Thousands of ordinary people work for the BBC, are they all "in on it"?
All the workers, no. But all major media outlets are owned by a very select few people. Those people usually belong to either the Council on Foreign Relations or the Builderberg Group. These think tanks are where the planes for the future are devised. Such meetings of these organizations cannot be covered by the media, nor can records be kept of what is discussed. This is WAY bigger than just America as the Illuminati were behind the founding of America in the first place.
What evidence do you have that Groening is a Freemason, or that the Freemasons even exist in the way you think they do?
The Groening/Freemason connection I will have to dig up for you. All you have to do is read "Morals in Dogma" by Albert Pike to find out about the satanic nature of the Freemasons. He was a high ranking Mason and his book serves in a similar capacity to the Bible for Christians.
Dozens of people (at the very least) work on dictionaries. Are they all "in on it"? What good would removing the phrase "false flag" from the dictionary do? Words don't disappear because they aren't in the dictionary.
Again people follow what their bosses tell them. Bringing up Joe Shmoe over at Websters serves no purpose. They get paid to do a job and do it. Most people never heard of the term, why make it possible to make a connection? Not sure about the last part, a little incoherent. Words are in the dictionary. I thought that was the purpose.
As a great man once said, "you can prove anything with facts". You need no more than one degree of speculation, and your explanation needs to be the best fit to the facts.
Facts are relative to who's interpreting the information. Very little that is called fact is actually factual. It's mostly well published opinion that gets accepted as fact because people get beat over the head by it and are infatuated with "experts" who can say anything free of criticism if they have "PhD" at the end of their names or appear on a major news network.
Fact: the towers fell in this way.
1st degree: this happened because of a controlled demolition (why we are even discussing this in the first place)
2nd degree: the controlled demolition was done by the Illuminati (who else would be able to concoct such a disgraceful, evil, well orchestrated plan?)
3rd degree: the Illuminati are Luciferians (people who have escaped the Illuminati have exposed exactly what they are about. Without the power of evil, no regular humans could seize control as they have)
4th degree: Satan exists (if you don't believe that, you have MUCH bigger problems than what caused the Twin Towers to fall. I'd really re-evaluate that one or you will get to meet him face to face)
5th degree: The Illuminati leave signs that they exist in order to increase their magic (refer to point three)
Fact: the towers fell in this way
Fact: hundreds if not thousands of people witnesses the planes hit the tower (not even in dispute)
Fact: witnesses testified there were terrorists on the planes (what witnesses, they are all dead. Oh you mean those ever so authentic cell phone calls? The only fact there is that phone calls were made, everything else is interpretation)
Fact: Al-Qaeda owned up to causing the attacks (of course they would, their demon religion teaches that to punish the infidels is of the highest honor, especially to die doing so. Why would they deny something that makes them so revered by their people?)
1st degree: terrorists hijacked the planes and crashed them into the buildings
Again, it's gonna take time to provide more documentation. Quite frankly, most of you probably will not accept even that because of your perception for what "credible sources" and "facts" are. But nonetheless, I'll do it anyway. Just doing my job...
27 Dec 2012, 8:44 pm
