9/11 breakthrough confession from one of the 4 Operatives [HOAX to promote movie project]

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
Some people really need to re-evaluate their thought processes, or acquire one in the first place.

I mean WTF, how was this not completely obvious from the get go just by looking at the YT channel it was uploaded to, never mind the whole row of other red flags.

Derp.

Someone did put explosive charges in all the Three buildings. And they were brought Down in a controlled fashion.

a reply to: spy66

Yes, and? Did I say anything that would refute this? Is this the topic of debate in this thread?

a reply to: spy66

It certainly looks like that, but it always did look like that. The nature of the collapses always did point to that as being more logical than airplanes hitting two scrapers and bringing down 3.

Let alone all of the buildings crashing down within their own footprints..this has always been known to be a difficult result to achieve and professional demolitions experts have to spend a lot of time preparing buildings for collapse, in order to achieve a result as accurate.

The point is if 9/11 is what it looks like (a false flag) you're not going to get any of the demolitions technicians involved coming forward. They will have been liquidated long ago..

I have not looked into the youtube account this video came from and have little interest in bothering any further in this thread.

What someone may want to do is look into the real motivation behind this clown posting this video. Because it looks like it's been done for no good reason.

a reply to: Counterintelligence

The point is if 9/11 is what it looks like (a false flag) you're not going to get any of the demolitions technicians involved coming forward. They will have been liquidated long ago..

Not if they were CIA agents. As this person explains he did this as a CIA agent/employee. CIA does not have to liquidate their agents when they are given a moral reason to do the job.

This person does tell us something very important and that is the reason why they were told to put explosive charges in the buildings. Placing charges in the building does have a moral Logic behind it as he explains. Even the CIA need to use moral Logic for their agents/employees to comply and be dedicated to do a job. The same morality is used to get SF and military personel to comply to do specific missions they are set to do without hesitation. The moral Deception is also used on the population to get them to comply moraly to a specfic political view point.

9/11 is a wide Deception from the beginning to the result we are left With today. THe Deception have also splitt the Public opinion, and that is what CIA or who ever set this in motion rest on. As long as the Public are left With different views and opinions about what 911 was. We have Limited Our selves to the result we see today. Since one camp is satified With the Deception story. The Deception have Public support. That is even very evident on this site. We are not United in how we view the Deception. A large portion of the population world wide do think 911 was a external job.

But even if this was a external job. The work permits to get acces to the Three buildings to Place the charges must have been internal. This means that there was a internal work order to have this job done. I dont think Binladen had this kind of authority since he was not the owner of the buildings.

Has anyone ever seen the rigging of explosives it takes to take a building down? Not only the amount of explosives, but the fact that the columns in a soon-to-be demo'd building are partially cut by the demolition crew. I think someone in those buildings would have noticed the explosives slung onto the sides of the columns.

It's more likely that the building pancaked from a failure at the upper floors, causing the "straight down" pancake effect that we saw -- which is not an uncommon structural failure of buildings that are under construction...

...i.e., The uncompleted upper floors fail (due to a construction or design error), and the weight of the collapsing upper floors pancake the building. It's not common in already constructed buildings because it isn't common for the upper floors' columns to fail (although it has happened in the past in buildings due to a fire on the upper floors).

Can you give me the link to the video? I happened to be googling on 9/11 just after the video was posted and came upon it. Stupidly I did not download or even keep a record of the link and now I can't find it again. At the time I thought that the guy didn't say anything to really prove he was involved but on reflection I'd imagine operatives are only given the information they need to know and don't really know any more than the rest of us except where there part comes into it. If you agree to give me a link or share it with me I'll give you my details.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Whatever the rigging to bring something down, Building 7 came down by controlled demolition. A building can't come down for part of its time at free fall acceleration and the rest of the way very close to it (6.5 seconds in all) unless its supporting structures have been removed at the same time.

See Building 7 against other controlled demolitions (2 minute video)
www.youtube.com...

See this report just published in Europhysics by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses
www.europhysicsnews.org...