No it doesn't. It relies on proof that anyone can see if he chooses to. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746 Anyone who actually looks at the proof that 9/11 was in inside job and still maintains it wasn't should watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4 That article was written by a bunch of government sophists. One doesn't have to be an expert to see that the tower didn't fall the way they would have fallen without controlled demolition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4 The squibs alone prove it was a controlled demolition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34p8WGAMwoY
Besides,that's always the truther way,dismiss any info that doesn't parrot their wild fantasies as 'Written by government sophists'
Speculation and opinion are not evidence or proof. How many times do we have to go over that? You should watch that video but think about how it applies to your clinging to conspiracy theories. I can't believe that a licensed clinical psychologist can say the following with a straight face. "At this point we have 9 years of hard scientific evidence that disproves the government's theory about what happened on September 11th". Just because some crazy (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) with a PhD says it, doesn't make it true. I guess a PhD doesn't bring with it the intelligence that it used to. If it ever did. Riiiiiight. Can you please point out to me the errors in the article?
The people who wrote it didn't want the readers to know the big picture. Watch this video. http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm Click on these hot links. 911 Eyewitness 1of3 (WMV 48megs) 911 Eyewitness 2of3 (WMV 48megs) 911 Eyewitness 3of3 (WMV 48megs)
I just don't get it. Why would the government come up with such a cockamamie idea? They want to make people believe that terrorists hijacked 3 planes and flew them into 3 different buildings so instead of just hiring some desperate souls or pretending to be a terrorist organization and recruiting desperate souls to do their dirty work, they come up with this overly complex plan where they don't even use planes but explosives and somehow get everyone to believe that their were planes involved. So instead of having only a handful of people who know the truth such as the those that recruited the "terrorists" and the "terrorists" themselves, there are scores of people who would be involved such as the demolition experts (to set off the explosions), the video experts (to create the fake video of the planes crashing), the people who bribed/blackmailed the media, and the people directing the whole affair. Really? The government is somehow smart enough to pull off such a complicated plan but too stupid to realize that if would have been a hell of a lot easier if they just hired some people to do what they are trying make the world believe was done? I makes no sense.
Evidently, they did. Look at the proof. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746 The did it so that they would have a pretext to go into the Middle East and take control of things there. It all makes perfect sense to an objective person who isn't blinded by patriotism. Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4
They seemed too shy so I made one for them: http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...sees-apollo-landing-sites.html#post1061523616
Here's some more good stuff about the Pentagon that I just found. http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_15.htm http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_16.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ (good Pentagon analysis at 29:00 time mark)
Want to know why you STILL can't produce a single shred of real evidence? Because the sites you post as credible don't have any evidence either. They ask tons of questions, most of which have been answered, but nothing that would constitute actual evidence.
You're right.. Some of the theories are so convuluted and counter intuitive their likelyhood can't be claimed. If you're going to controlled demo the towers, then do it. Why get planes and incorporate airlines in the scam and all that? It's possible, maybe, a two-prong approach to knock over the towers. In '93 they tried but failed. But that was basically their dream. Like man on the moon or whatever, the terrorist dream, to actually knock over the towers. They failed in '93. Maybe, we can fly planes into them and compromise their structure at a certain point. They might still stand, but even the smallest shake might help. It's possible to also incorporate massive van bombs and detonate them in the base of the towers. Give them the shake they need to dislodge the precarious severed top section. Like when you're playing jenga and you see the guy pulled out a block and it's barely standing now so you try to discreetly shift the table slightly with your foot to finish the job. I'm not saying this is what happened but it's theoretically possible.
If course I read the info on those two pages and watched the part of the video about the Pentagon... http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_15.htm http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_16.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ (good Pentagon analysis at 29:00 time mark) ...and I only remember scepticizm about the idea that a 757 hit the Pentagon. I just scanned the two articles and saw nothing that says a 757 hit it. It looks like you're using the desperate disinfo tactic of misrepresenting what the info in links says in order to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to click on them and look at the info. All I can do in a case like this is to advise the viewers that you pro-official version posters lie a lot and not to take what you say seriously when you tell them what info is in links. Hey Viewers! Please don't take their word for it. Click on the links and look at the data before forming an opinion on the info in links that have been posted by truthers.
Hey Scott. How come you claim the evidence you present is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing that nobody could walk away not believing your (*)(*)(*)(*), yet to date not one person has done so? If they had, they would have told two friends and so on and so on and so on. Looks like your own lie has exposed the dishonesty of your claims.
I don't think many people have to have this explained but I'd better do it just in case. This is a classic example of "Handwaving". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving (example) ------------------------------------------ Handwaving is a pejorative label applied to the action of displaying the appearance of doing something, when actually doing little, or nothing. For example, it is applied to debate techniques that involve logical fallacies. It is also used in working situations where productive work is expected, but no work is actually accomplished. Handwaving can be an idiomatic term, and it can also be a literal descriptive term for the use of excessive body language gestures that are associated with a lack of productivity in communication or other effort. The superlative expressions for the term, such as "vigorous handwaving" or "furious handwaving", are used to imply that the handwaver lacks confidence in the information being conveyed, and cannot actually convey the essence or core of his argument. ------------------------------------------ There is zero substance in that post but he has the attitude that he just blew me out of the water. Disinfo agents will do this when they're cornered until the issue blows over and then they'll go on as if nothing had happened and the part of the debate where they were exposed as liars gets buried deep in the thread. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 (excerpt) -------------------------------------------------------------- With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Patriot- Hannibal said the info in the links I posted said that a 757 had hit the Pentagon. Do you agree with him?
I encourage everyone to read the links for themselves. Where's the evidence of a fly-over? (per this thread)
I don't get it... Something hit the Pentagon. So they flew the plane over the Pentagon and what crashed it elsewhere? And then shot a missile at the Pentagon?
Clearly the best way to conduct a cover up and conspiracy is to plan Rube Goldberg-esque plots that make no sense so that people will reject them and be more susceptible to accepting a logical and less complex false narrative. The shadow government spends hundreds of man hours in their hardened bunkers trying to out crazy each others plans for world domination for the specific purpose of making the people who are on to their schemes appear to be out of their blinking minds. Think of how they must laugh. I know I do.
OMG I fell for it. I always thought they got ten thousand monkeys to type on ten thousand typewriters until one of them typed out a viable plot.
Agent A: People are getting too bold. We need to shake things up again. Agent B: Let's attack ourselves and make it look like someone else did it so that we can attack a third person. Agent A: That's not crazy enough. People will too easily believe it. Agent B: I'm just getting started. Better put on a pot of coffee. We're going to pretend to slam planes into the WTC towers and the pentagon, destroy a reclaimed strip mine in PA, and (Yelling over shoulder) "Hey, Agent Y, is the hurricane generator operational yet?" maybe even hit the east coast with a hurricane. Agent A: Pretend? We're not going to actually use aircraft, right? That's way too risky. Agent B: 3 words. Spray. On. Thermite. Agent A: Thermite won't work on the Pentagon. Agent B: Waaay ahead of you. We hit the Pentagon with a missile. Agent A: Wait a minute, won't people wonder who was on the aircraft? Agent B: No problem. We voice morph a few phone calls and make a few people disappear. Remember that time in Rio? Agent A: Oh yeah. She was a...wait a minute. We're going to have to run this from the building 7 bunker. What if someone finds our records? Agent B: That's why we installed self destruct. Firefighters can just pull the self destruct lever and down she comes. Agent A: I love my job.
