Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by Toro, Apr 27, 2008.
... and pwns the conspiracists
You realize according to Eots and his buddies WE did 911. So I guess they are both lying?
Actually, I think the spin now is that maybe Bush, the neocons, the oil companies and the Joos didn't do this by themselves. They did so through their al-Qaeda surrogates.
Or that al-Qaeda is just lying to enhance their status in the Mid-East.
You know, reasonable conclusions...
I for one, am glad he is discrediting this rumor...
Israel did not commit 9/11.
Only reasonable to moonbats.
uh thats obvious to anybody who can think for themsleves and outside the box that it was an inside job pulled off by the CIA.Anybody who thinks otherwise is living in a fairytale land and obviously afraid of the truth. get educated www.911truth.org thats just one of many websites where you can learn the truth.
The CIA AND its creation, al-Qaeda, which, according to the conspiracists, doesn't even exist, even though they go and television and tell Iran to F--- off!
Be sure to check out the link to the steering committee. One guy there was a plantiff in an ALCU lawsuit, most of them are sociology professors at various leftist universities. Not exactly the unbiased or knowledgable types.
all you got to do is look at the videos to see that explosives brought those towers down.Im sure its been mentioned before but since im new here,I;ll mention it again.never in the history of mankind has a a steel structure fell due to fires.and the comeback to that is always none of those steel structures were hit by a jet either though.Well that holds no water either because back in 93 when they had the bombing,there was a documentary made on the towers and leslie robertson the lead designer said that the towers were designed to take a hit from a jet airliner going at maximun speeds of 600 mph.a few of the designers even mentioned on the tape that it was designed to take hits from MULTIPLE airliners.that there would be a great loss of life but the towers themselves would remain standing.
One of the designers kevin ryan even wrote a report to NIST criticising their report-NIST changed their story everytime someone shreaded it to pieces.after Ryan wrote that piece to NIST,he was fired from his job.Plus witnesses who were there heard EXPLOSIONS going off from BELOW in the basement BEFORE the plane struck above.the media blackout of all these witnesses who said they heard explosions going off is enough proof that the media-which is a tool for the government,is proof enough its a coverup and inside job.many dozens and dozens have testified they heard explosions going off in the towers.they have NOTHING to gain by lying.you have firefighters on tape saying-I know what an explosion sounds like and those were explosions.the evidence from the EXPERTS is overwhelming it was an inside job.Bushs brother and cousin were the head of security in the months leading up to that day.just go to the libray and check out some books on 9/11,you'll see for yourself,the evidence is overwhelming.people who accept the governments version have not down their homework.read those books,do some research.
theres been demolition experts saying those towers could not have fallen down like that unless explosives were used,the designers themselves said the towers should have remained standing,the witnesses story contradicts the governments version.it was an inside job,period end of discussion.
Demolition experts debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
According to Protec, one of the foremost demolition companies in the world
- There is zero evidence that charges were placed in the building where a demolition would occur
- The building did not fall straight down. The initial failures in the WTC happened high in the buildings, not low as would occur in a demolition.
- Air and debris is what was seen coming out of the building prior to the collapse, not evidence of a charge
- There is no seismic evidence of an explosion. The seismic evidence points to a structural failure.
- Witnesses who heard sounds that may sound like an explosion does not mean an explosion took place
- There is no evidence that any non-conventional explosive was used
- People who handled the steel say that it was not quickly shipped overseas
- It is unlikely WTC7 was blown up with explosives for several reasons, including that the owner does not have the authority to dictate to emergency and fire personnel to destroy a building, the term "pull it" is not used in explosives nomenclature, there was plenty of collateral damage to structurally damage WTC7, demolition experts at the scene said there was no evidence it was a demolition, and no physical evidence has ever been presented proving it was a demolition
- Many steel structures have collapsed due to fire. It is also a flaw of logic to assume that simply because one thing had not happened before means it could not happen
Separate names with a comma.