9/11 myths debunked . . .

Originally posted by AgentSmith

I do believe a lot of information, put out with the guise of enlightening people to an alternative theory, is a real dis-information tactic perpetrated by people unknown for unknown but speculated upon reasons.

But you've got to look at who benefits most from releasing info...

Who would gain more from releasing dis-info, an independeant researcher looking for the truth, or the government?

And why argue the governments side just because the other info might be dis-info. It doesn't make sense to me.

There are obvious things with 9-11 that are not right, not as "they" claim.
You don't have to listen to what anyone else says to figure that out for yourself. Just have to allow yourself to believe the truth, which is hard because we have all endured a lifetime of conditioning, designed to cause us to automaticly side with authority. (Thats why disinfo agents claim to be an authority on what they're de-bunking).
Remember they're constantly telling you anyone who questions their version of events is a "NUT-BAR"...Look up "Rotte Learning"

If you call me paranoid you're just proving that you fear the truth.

It would be more accurate to say 'fearing the possible truth.' As none of us actually know what the truth definately is.

ONe thing that we must remember is that there are various other enemies out there and they are not all foreigners. There are various groups of individuals that follow various paths like Nazism for example which are a problem in the states at least. There are many people that welcome a state of anarchy and seek to impose it, these people will also be in amongst us doing their best to turn people the way they want to their own end.
If they cotton onto any doubt anyone has for their government (which may be right is having) then they will milk it to get their own end. We have to be weary of that, there will be people cheering from your side who are not really your friends.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Yeah, dude, Nazism is a problem. I mean, I'm sure they'd love to have an overly patriotic government with a strong central government that embraces corporatism, tortures without trials, discriminates against people of certain religions and sexual preferences, and nurtures sociological biases against Arabs and homos and Mexicans and "commies" and liberals and etc., among others, and proclaims nothing but virtues for itself as it goes about restricting freedoms for "homeland security" just as Hitler himself did, and initiating unfounded wars on "faulty intelligence" which is played down and soon forgotten while the war itself rages on. And don't forget manufacturing insane amounts of propoganda in little (or sometimes bigger) events here and there.

We mustn't let that happen! Damned Nazis! You may have fooled the Germans, but you won't fool us! We're too smart to fall for your old sociological tricks!

Originally posted by AgentSmith
There are many people that welcome a state of anarchy and seek to impose it, these people will also be in amongst us doing their best to turn people the way they want to their own end

Man, don't get me started on Anarchism. All I'll say is pls get informed about it before you knock it. If you think Anarchists want to impose anything on you then you have NO idea what Anarchism REALLY is.
The state incorectly uses the word Anarchy when they mean chaos, Anarchists know the government IS chaos.

It's government that imposes it's will on the population. They are the real enemy to freedom and liberty.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
"For clarity purposes Off_The_Street, i assume that you agree with PM's conclusion?"

Yes, and I have been saying that for over three years.

Your ignorance astounds me. This is exactly the problem, you think you have answer and thus you mold the "evidence" to fit your answer. You're not even considering the possibility of anything else than what you think is the answer.

I'm not even sure what I believe, in my opinion there's much credible evidence and credible people behind that evidence that supports both theories of the collapses.
However I'm leaning more towards the theory that says the towers were blown, partly because of the scientific evidence but also because the government and several corporations have the motive to do this, they everything to gain from it and do not really care about people in a moral way, they're simply numbers to them.

I am not fully convinced either way to be honest. Exhaustive research(all the available footage online, termite explanations, testimony, etc)
still does not settle anything for me.

I can see both train of thoughts, and see both sides.

If you look at the footage, those planes slamming in is a truly forceful and violent site. When talking about WTC 1 and 2, 9/11 truth peopel should not say 'people claim the towers fell from fire, and no highrise has ever fallen from fire'. I agree when it comes to WTC7. But no highrise has ever had a plane filled with fuel slam into it, so just a little something to tak einto consideration. I still say its possible vehicles with explosives were in the sublevels.

Was WTC7 structurally compromised to the point they knew it was going to fall? I've seen pictures that most of the 9/11 truth folks never show, that shows considerable more damage, smoke and fire then the little teency fire pix show before.

WTC7 does seem odd. If we are to believe firefighters saw a massive gaping hole in the building, how the heck did it get there? If they "pulled" the building, why not say it officially and explain how they got the explosives in there.

I can see how the quibs could be describes as part of the pancake theory upon closer analysis, but I also agree with a lot of what Professor Jones said in his thesis. Sadly, given the US government cleared away so much evidence so quickly and never really investigated it, the truth may never be known.

The NASA thermal imaging of massive hot spots weeks at the bases of WTC 1 and 2, as well as molten steel at all three buildings are definately troubling.

Anyone else not convinced either way, and can see both points?

Originally posted by 8bitagent
WTC7 does seem odd. If we are to believe firefighters saw a massive gaping hole in the building, how the heck did it get there? If they "pulled" the building, why not say it officially and explain how they got the explosives in there.

Because the charges would've had to been placed in the building so far in advance, it would lend huge amounts of credibility to the otherwise (seemingly) incredulous idea that the all the WTC skyscrapers were demolished.

I can see how the quibs could be describes as part of the pancake theory upon closer analysisp

How is that? Air travelling faster than the collapse itself, jetting across floors in un-decompressing streams from the few vents along the centers of the floors, and ejecting solid dust out over 100 feet into the air laterally? I don't understand what makes people believe this is somehow possible, if it's what you're even referring to.

this simple Pro-NeoCon ´soldiers´ here are easy to see.
moan.

reply to post by Bleys


yeah well he should have stuck with his original statement thats obviously how he felt , and lets face it , he was right. Do a little research, those buildings werent even capable of a pancake collapse, built like sh#t brick houses, ill tell you why he retracted his statement, he couldnt handle the ridicule and didnt want to lose his job.

After seeing both sides I am still in the thought
that it was an INSIDE JOB.....
A major part in the so called "WAR ON TERROR"

reply to post by Maya432

/sign
/seal
/deliver
You can dubunk every CT and not prove the OS. If popular mechanics comes out with something that proves the OS, I'm all ears.

/hold breath
j/k