-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Disco08 said:
Sure they are. Eyewitness testimony to support your contention is not very convincing if you look at the reliability of such evidence historically.
I know that goes against popular (and in many cases legal) thought, but the evidence against it is compelling. I like to rely on the physical evidence myself. Nothing I have seen in this argument (nor the previous on this board) has been very convincing to me. Plenty of pattern seeking and circumstantial discussion, but little that can't be explained by the mainstream story.
Did you see the 3 freeze frames of the second plane clearly showing no windows and a grey fuselage? Can you find me a photo or video of that plane that clearly shows United Airlines livery?
What's the mainstream reasoning for Bush only spending $15M on the investigation? What about the fact he was in Florida where his brother the governor had, for no apparent reason, declared marshall law two days before 9/11? Why does the mainstream story reason that Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath and, even more ridiculously, without eachother?
What's the mainstream reasoning for Bush only spending $15M on the investigation? What about the fact he was in Florida where his brother the governor had, for no apparent reason, declared marshall law two days before 9/11? Why does the mainstream story reason that Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath and, even more ridiculously, without eachother?
Disco08 said:
Those aren't very clear images and it clearly has the shape and engines of a 767.....what military aircraft looks like that? The eyewitness accounts are just that. One of them was calling it a possible drone! No agreement from a cherry picked selection of statements. All of the passengers are in on the conspiracy now? The cohort grows. Amazing that no leaks have occurred!
Nice argument from incredulity Pantera. It's also not like you to miss the obvious. Why make the passengers co-conspiritors when you can just kill them in the name of colateral damage? No answers to the other questions?
If I'm told a United Airlines 767 flew into the south tower of the WTC not long after an American Airlines flight had hit the north tower, with cameras on it from every angle, I'd expect at least one or two photos where I can clearly see the logo and wording and most certainly the windows.
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/us-offers-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-to.html
If I'm told a United Airlines 767 flew into the south tower of the WTC not long after an American Airlines flight had hit the north tower, with cameras on it from every angle, I'd expect at least one or two photos where I can clearly see the logo and wording and most certainly the windows.
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/us-offers-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-to.html
Disco08 said:
It would be handy in this situation, but an absence considering the quality of the footage isn't convincing to me.
Well, if the flight wasn't crashed into the 2nd tower, what happened to its passengers?
If the plan included killing thousands of people left in the towers I doubt killing the passengers on those flights would cause the perpetrators any headaches. Seems plausible enough too given the Northwoods evidence. In fact it seems to fit that modus operandi very well.
What about the flight radar showing UAL175 still in the air after both towers had been hit? Conicidental anomaly or error even though the info for those radars comes directly from the plane's transponder?
What about the flight radar showing UAL175 still in the air after both towers had been hit? Conicidental anomaly or error even though the info for those radars comes directly from the plane's transponder?
jb03 said:
they knew once they told the people it was a commercial plane they would believe it so why bother. people were in shock, they weren't thinking straight, they saw things, imagined things, got confused, it was a stressful occasion, very traumatic, their judgement wasn't good at the time, you know how it goes.
also what's the official story about the molten steel found at ground zero. haven't read anything about this.
why would so many people, engineers, architects, scholars, pilots, firefighters, policemen, joe public want a re-investigation? what do they have to gain? Are they all anti-government nutters? what's their motive? can't understand why people are quick to dismiss them as if they have an ulterior motive when all they are doing is raising some good questions.
why would so many people, engineers, architects, scholars, pilots, firefighters, policemen, joe public want a re-investigation? what do they have to gain? Are they all anti-government nutters? what's their motive? can't understand why people are quick to dismiss them as if they have an ulterior motive when all they are doing is raising some good questions.
Ah, you gotta love a conspiracy theorist. "It's a conspiracy, eye witnesses said had no windows!"
Now forget that these "eyewitnesses" we're far away. Forget the speed this plane was travelling at. Forget the families of the "passengers"., forget the "terrorists (they were just actors, I saw 1 of them on Seinfeld I think)..well just put all reality on hold really!
Notice in this clip that the Boeing also looks like its grey with no windows: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-W2Hu70y_D8
The guy from air traffic is a stooge too btw :hihi
There is another clip where a conspiracy theorist said there wasn't even a plane crashing into tower 2 (and therefore proved it was an explosion and therefore a conspiracy) but it was later simply shown as poor quality footage (because there definitely a plane crashing into tower 2!)
Honestly I find it incomprehensible that any sensible person believes September 11 is a conspiracy. There,s also a heap of footage on the net that"proves" it was a terrorist attack but best leave that alone I guess.
Unreal but it's been good for a laugh.
Now forget that these "eyewitnesses" we're far away. Forget the speed this plane was travelling at. Forget the families of the "passengers"., forget the "terrorists (they were just actors, I saw 1 of them on Seinfeld I think)..well just put all reality on hold really!
Notice in this clip that the Boeing also looks like its grey with no windows: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-W2Hu70y_D8
The guy from air traffic is a stooge too btw :hihi
There is another clip where a conspiracy theorist said there wasn't even a plane crashing into tower 2 (and therefore proved it was an explosion and therefore a conspiracy) but it was later simply shown as poor quality footage (because there definitely a plane crashing into tower 2!)
Honestly I find it incomprehensible that any sensible person believes September 11 is a conspiracy. There,s also a heap of footage on the net that"proves" it was a terrorist attack but best leave that alone I guess.
Unreal but it's been good for a laugh.
tigertim said:
Footage such as?
It's the height of arrogance to laugh at such a large number of people, as Harry points out many of whom are expert in their field with no vested interest or alterior motive, just because they don't share your opinion and are calling for a proper investigation. Not surprising though as this is the classic apologist's response in any argument.
