9/11: Debunking The Myths

[Toro]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

aeon I don't think you answered ITN's question about the age. I would say that in the early sixties someone would have to have been at least 40 to 50 to be in a position of power to have been able to assassinate Kennedy and cover it up.

Oh pish posh.

The calendar is merely a neo-con imposition to dominate the world. If people didn't know how old they were, they wouldn't get older, and thus wouldn't die. And it is in America's interest that everybody die - except the Bush cabal, who have found immortality through the weather machine they used to destroy New Orleans.

The concept of "time" is merely a reactionary concept by those who spout the concept of "freedom" knowing full well that they can never escape the slavery of time. Once all the people ban together and reject such outmoded concepts such as "time", we can overthrow the tyranny of the secret, evil Bush cabal and live forever without Chrisitianity and fattening foods.

Goo.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

George Bush I was head of the CIA.

You might add that salient little fact in your
machinations over the subject.

Wrong my friend, i can see you pay attention, i said bush 1 denied to have been in the cia in the 60's, which he claim to have entered the cia in 1976 only, quite different.

 

[FiveParadox]

I have another theory.

I think that Bush is a robot. I mean, come on, think about it: Studies show (now, of course, I don't have a link to those studies, nor do those studies technically "exist" in this dimension) that the World Trade Centre could only have been brought down my an electric drill breaking the seal of the Emergency Release column, situated in the centre of the secret sixteenth basement — and the electric drill needed to break that seal could only be one of a robot! Others wouldn't be strong enough! Plus, there are photographs of Bush entering the Trade Centre that morning (while his replicate robot was reading books to little kids), but you can't see the photos, because I said so.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

aeon I don't think you answered ITN's question about the age. I would say that in the early sixties someone would have to have been at least 40 to 50 to be in a position of power to have been able to assassinate Kennedy and cover it up.

Exactly and that guy is called Presscott bush, along with his son, HW.

That would mean on average the planners of 9/11 would have been in their late eighties.

I am curious though as to how conspiracy theorists explain the Bali bombings. Was this an inside job as well? The Indonesian government is Muslim which is only important if there was coordination with the seniors you say were behind 9/11.

Good question, and nice observation, i really dont know what really happened in bali, one thing i know though, it targeted foreign peoples, not muslim.

 

[fuflans]

I have waited a long time to post this. Perhaps too long. It's time for the truth to finally be revealed:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1149394286006250992&q=frank+chu

You'll notice that he says 'Bush' and 'CIA' a lot, thus proving his claims.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

I have another theory.

I think that Bush is a robot. I mean, come on, think about it: Studies show (now, of course, I don't have a link to those studies, nor do those studies technically "exist" in this dimension) that the World Trade Centre could only have been brought down my an electric drill breaking the seal of the Emergency Release column, situated in the centre of the secret sixteenth basement — and the electric drill needed to break that seal could only be one of a robot! Others wouldn't be strong enough! Plus, there are photographs of Bush entering the Trade Centre that morning (while his replicate robot was reading books to little kids), but you can't see the photos, because I said so.

Ok, but i don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[fuflans]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

I have another theory.

I think that Bush is a robot. I mean, come on, think about it: Studies show (now, of course, I don't have a link to those studies, nor do those studies technically "exist" in this dimension) that the World Trade Centre could only have been brought down my an electric drill breaking the seal of the Emergency Release column, situated in the centre of the secret sixteenth basement — and the electric drill needed to break that seal could only be one of a robot! Others wouldn't be strong enough! Plus, there are photographs of Bush entering the Trade Centre that morning (while his replicate robot was reading books to little kids), but you can't see the photos, because I said so.

Ok, but i don't understand what you are trying to say.

You don't understand the TRUTH?

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

I have another theory.

I think that Bush is a robot. I mean, come on, think about it: Studies show (now, of course, I don't have a link to those studies, nor do those studies technically "exist" in this dimension) that the World Trade Centre could only have been brought down my an electric drill breaking the seal of the Emergency Release column, situated in the centre of the secret sixteenth basement — and the electric drill needed to break that seal could only be one of a robot! Others wouldn't be strong enough! Plus, there are photographs of Bush entering the Trade Centre that morning (while his replicate robot was reading books to little kids), but you can't see the photos, because I said so.

Ok, but i don't understand what you are trying to say.

You don't understand the TRUTH?

Case close then?

 

[Karlin]

U.S. Military Chiefs Planned to Orchestrate Terrorism in U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/px4aj

--------------

9/11 Cover-up Two-Page Summary:
Was 9/11 Allowed to Happen?
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up


Case closed? - hardly

 

[jimmoyer]

That was 40 years ago, a time when Hollywood produced
movies such as The Ugly American, Fail Safe, Seven
Days in May---- all knowing without proof what you post
now.

And as far as knowing about 9/11, the incompetency'
of bureaucracy is the greater provable evil.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

That was 40 years ago, a time when Hollywood produced
movies such as The Ugly American, Fail Safe, Seven
Days in May---- all knowing without proof what you post
now.

And as far as knowing about 9/11, the incompetency'
of bureaucracy is the greater provable evil.

The fact that PNAC indicate in their ("Rebuilding America's Defenses" http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf page 63 of pdf, or 51 of the real) that a new pearl harbor would help to advance their agenda, the fact that building 7 was brought down with explosives, the fact that the anthrax was an inside job, the fact that operation northwood, was planned and approved by the joint chief of staff, i think it is enough to claim that there is enough evidence to at the least suspect of an inside job on 9-11.

 

[jimmoyer]

Aeon, your stringing of facts has none of the rigor
required even in Canadian courts to convict.

I could string separate facts and incidents in your
life to create an indictment that would not be true
about you, yet each incident by itself would be provable.

Your ability to collate a series of facts is like seeing
each individual tree, but not the forest.

In a court of law, that string of facts over years of
changing faces and different people are circumstantial.

Google that word, circumstantial in its legal context.

Your indictment has all the mob mentality of a
hanging tree.

We have evidence of lowly FBI agents being ignored
and why? You would rush to conclude a conspiracy.

Anthrax was most likely done by some stupid goverment
employee who actually is smart enough like the
Unabomber to stop for long periods of time.

That kind of criminal is the hardest to find.

Conspiring groups of people during a short period
(not 40 years) are the easiest to find.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

Aeon, your stringing of facts has none of the rigor
required even in Canadian courts to convict.

I could string separate facts and incidents in your
life to create an indictment that would not be true
about you, yet each incident by itself would be provable.

Your ability to collate a series of facts is like seeing
each individual tree, but not the forest.

In a court of law, that string of facts over years of
changing faces and different people are circumstantial.

Google that word, circumstantial in its legal context.

Your indictment has all the mob mentality of a
hanging tree.

We have evidence of lowly FBI agents being ignored
and why? You would rush to conclude a conspiracy.

Anthrax was most likely done by some stupid goverment
employee who actually is smart enough like the
Unabomber to stop for long periods of time.

That kind of criminal is the hardest to find.

Conspiring groups of people during a short period
(not 40 years) are the easiest to find.

Building 7, operation northwood , anthrax are enough to put suspicion on your governement,when in fact, there is nothing that support the alquada implication.

 

[jimmoyer]

Building 7, operation northwood , anthrax are enough to put suspicion on your governement,when in fact, there is nothing that support the alquada implication.
------------------------aeon--------------------------------

You know the old saying that a Prosecutor can make
a grand jury indict a ham sandwich ?

The anthrax was probably done by a Lone Ranger
and that's why that trail died cold, especially because
whoever did it has intelligently stopped doing it.

Isn't the mark of a perfect crime when it is only
perpertrated by one person who tells no one and
has the discipline to stop repeating it ?

That behavior is extremely rare, because the snipers
who killed people around the Washington DC area
got caught because they couldn't resist continuing
the crimes.

Nobody blames al Qaeda for either Anthrax or the
snipers.

You would think with your suspicion of American
stupidity that the public could not resist blaming
all such crimes on al Qaeda ?

Operation Northwood, like the infamous FBI director
J.Edgar Hoover is dead as a door nail, especially since
extraneous people like you and me know all about it.

Regarding Building 7, I nowhere near trust your
knowlege of structural science or architecture. I
do trust the fact that questions are not fully answered
however on that matter by anyone.

And as far as your blithe and shallow dismissal of
al Qaeda motives, despite your recent acceptance
they had something to do with the first attempt
on the Twin Towers in 1993 and damaged it structural
integrity back then and which took years of repair,
I think you have an axe to grind and so you have no
objectivity in your research ---- the very thing
you decry in others.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

Building 7, operation northwood , anthrax are enough to put suspicion on your governement,when in fact, there is nothing that support the alquada implication.
------------------------aeon--------------------------------

You know the old saying that a Prosecutor can make
a grand jury indict a ham sandwich ?

The anthrax was probably done by a Lone Ranger
and that's why that trail died cold, especially because
whoever did it has intelligently stopped doing it.

Isn't the mark of a perfect crime when it is only
perpertrated by one person who tells no one and
has the discipline to stop repeating it ?

That behavior is extremely rare, because the snipers
who killed people around the Washington DC area
got caught because they couldn't resist continuing
the crimes.

Nobody blames al Qaeda for either Anthrax or the
snipers.

You would think with your suspicion of American
stupidity that the public could not resist blaming
all such crimes on al Qaeda ?

Operation Northwood, like the infamous FBI director
J.Edgar Hoover is dead as a door nail, especially since
extraneous people like you and me know all about it.

Regarding Building 7, I nowhere near trust your
knowlege of structural science or architecture. I
do trust the fact that questions are not fully answered
however on that matter by anyone.

And as far as your blithe and shallow dismissal of
al Qaeda motives, despite your recent acceptance
they had something to do with the first attempt
on the Twin Towers in 1993 and damaged it structural
integrity back then and which took years of repair,
I think you have an axe to grind and so you have no
objectivity in your research ---- the very thing
you decry in others.

I don't dismiss al qaeda motives, it just they are not structure to do it, would you trust a russian general on that matter??

http://www.periodico26.cu/english/opinion/ivashov011806.htm

The fact that building 7 wasnt hit by an airplane, the fact that buildings even closer than building 7 was to wtc towers, didnt collapse, the fact that the leaseholder admitted to have controlled demolish the wtc 7 on a pbs documentary, and the way building 7 fell, at a free fall speed, support the claim that building 7 was brought down by explosives.

 

[fuflans]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

I think there's an echo in here. Aeon, a novel idea might be to refute some of the criticisms that others have leveled against 'your' observations.

It would help if you didn't just repeat the same stuff that you've said a million times or post the same links that you've posted a million and one times. That's not helping anything.

That means,if somebody brings up a criticism about your theory of what happend to Building 7, don't say something like this, because it really doesn't answer anything at all:

The fact that building 7 wasnt hit by an airplane, the fact that buildings even closer than building 7 was to wtc towers, didnt collapse, the fact that the leaseholder admitted to have controlled demolish the wtc 7 on a pbs documentary, and the way building 7 fell, at a free fall speed, support the claim that building 7 was brought down by explosives.

Calling us 'blind' or 'ignorant to the truth' or to the 'facts' isn't going to cut it either.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

I think there's an echo in here. Aeon, a novel idea might be to refute some of the criticisms that others have leveled against 'your' observations.

It would help if you didn't just repeat the same stuff that you've said a million times or post the same links that you've posted a million and one times. That's not helping anything.

That means,if somebody brings up a criticism about your theory of what happend to Building 7, don't say something like this, because it really doesn't answer anything at all:

The fact that building 7 wasnt hit by an airplane, the fact that buildings even closer than building 7 was to wtc towers, didnt collapse, the fact that the leaseholder admitted to have controlled demolish the wtc 7 on a pbs documentary, and the way building 7 fell, at a free fall speed, support the claim that building 7 was brought down by explosives.

Calling us 'blind' or 'ignorant to the truth' or to the 'facts' isn't going to cut it either.

I agree with everything you just said.