Truther Movement Can't Be Stopped

reply to post by mikelee

its 2010 and its still one the most talked about incidents of all time...even now.

Yes on the 9/11 conspiracy forum, but that's what it's there for.

I don't see many 9/11 threads get frontpage too often anymore.

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by mikelee

 

WTC 7 is another fatal flaw, a nail in the Bushco coffin. WTC 7 was not struck by any airliner of any size.

And who claimed that it was hit by an airliner?

If you noticed the twin towers were actually quite tall and so as they collapsed debris wouldn't just go downwards, it would hit many structures on the way to the ground.

Obviously, you have never seen the layout of the World Trade Center Complex. Please check the diagram at the link below, and explain how that could happen:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by mikelee

 

It was seen standing behind a BBC correspondent even as she reported its collapse. Clearly --she had gotten the official 'release' but screwed up by reporting this planned event before it, in fact, occurred.

Oh so now they had to give her a script. How silly and stupid would that have been. Here darling, here's a script of what WE EVIL PEOPLE ARE ABOUT TO DO!!! Why not just let her report it as it happens, if they planned it to happen! DUH!!!

Yes, in hindsight, that would have been wiser. These people are obviously not as smart as they think they are.

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by mikelee

 

The fall of WTC 7, never struck by airliners, is a classic example of a controlled demolition.

Well my theory is that a giant marshmallow space tourist landed on WTC 7 using cloaked ships and didn't mean to cause the collapse but shucks they told me they're really sorry about it all!

All things considered, your theory is as plausible as the OS. At least in yours, someone owns up to their misdeeds.

The only people who take the truther movement seriously... are other truthers. I mean if anyone actually wanted to "stop" the truthers, their parents could just ground them and that would eliminate 97% of them right off the bat.

reply to post by Dogdish

Yes, in hindsight, that would have been wiser. These people are obviously not as smart as they think they are.

I'm not claiming they have to be smart, I'm only suggesting that there's simply no purpose at all to give the BBC woman a script in the event that it was all planned out. It's absurd that anyone would consider it part of their EVIL PLANS! Why not just let her report it as she witnesses it? What's to gain by writing a script?

It much more likely she was told 7 was on fire and the fire team were pulled out in case of collapse. Another station even reported the towers collapsing into the Hudson river, so during those frantic minutes mistakes or misquotes are just more plausible than a grand conspiracy.

Obviously, you have never seen the layout of the World Trade Center Complex. Please check the diagram at the link below, and explain how that could happen:

Have you not considered that this diagram is 2-dimensional and doesn't show where columns collapsed into building 7. Therefore the link you provided is shoddy and lacks any kind of proper analysis.

There are photos of WTC 7 severely on fire. I wonder why conspiracy theorists never publish them on their pages!

Although you will find them on more analytical sites such as these - www.debunking911.com...

[edit on 27-1-2010 by john124]

Bush won Time magazine person of the year twice - first in 2000, then in 2004. Can you guys make a conspiracy out of this as well cos' I'm bored?

www.time.com...

www.time.com...

Well I see most of the Peanut gallery has punched in.



No plausible reason's for disagreeing, just emoticon's (sign of intelligence)

I would like ATS to have a Poll , who agrees in the OS ,and who believes the

Gov were involved.

I think many respondants would be surprised the number here on ATS

think the OS is a crock.

We already know 67% of American's feel the Gov were involved,

maybe it is ATS members who are Below the curve.



[edit on 27-1-2010 by Sean48]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Sean48]

Let all the peanuts speak, we hear them also and we fight for their truth too. Simply because the OS just don't provide them with any

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

reply to post by john124



I don't think it means as much as perhaps your trying to insist that it does.

Cannoli

you sound like a paid blogger. Are you blind man!!!! your either blind or a disinfo agent seriously. then you go and diss the whole ATS website?! cant find truth here? where can we find joey canoli?

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by john124

 

I don't think it means as much as perhaps your trying to insist that it does.

OK, perhaps not then.

reply to post by Sean48

We already know 67% of American's feel the Gov were involved,

maybe it is ATS members who are Below the curve.

"feel the govt. were involved" - the problem with vague surveys are that it's meaningless. How can anyone give a serious answer to these types of vague surveys, and what % of them think the govt. is entirely responsible for the deaths as per the usual 9/11 ATS'er?

Governments almost always have secrets about something, and they're never as juicy as conspiracists wish them to be.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
There's really zero need to stop something that has never gotten out of the gate in the first place.

Oops, looks like truthers have broken their leg in the chute.

Face it, truthers are good for a laugh, and to make the rational among us feel better about ourselves, even though I DO feel guilty making fun of the challenged......

Interesting since your post history shows you apparently need to feel good about yourself WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too often. Some might think you were almost interested in the truth with that much 9/11 posting. Thanks for letting us know what it is all really for.

Originally posted by john124


"feel the govt. were involved" - the problem with vague surveys are that it's meaningless. How can anyone give a serious answer to these types of vague surveys, and what % of them think the govt. is entirely responsible for the deaths as per the usual 9/11 ATS'er?

Fair enough response sir.

Do you think ANY Gov involvement is acceptable ?

reply to post by john124


Regardless of what anyone says, video don't lie especially when this particular video was shown on worldwide televisions the day of 911. BEFORE WTC7 collapsed.




[edit on 27-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


So what? I've already given a more likely explanation that doesn't require a video to lie either!

Interesting how somebody felt the need to highlight specified areas of the video shot as though 9/11 conspiracists were unable to see it themselves.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by john124]

reply to post by Sean48

Do you think ANY Gov involvement is acceptable ?

If "ANY" includes whatever anyone can imagine, then it's again too vague question that is difficult to answer with a straight yes/no.

No, if it means Bush hiring muslims to crash planes. No, if it includes any sort of cover-up of mistakes.

Although in reality governments will sometimes cover up intelligence blunders, or something that's trivial in comparison and not as fantastic as the conspiracy believers expectations.

So whilst there may be some truth still to learn, it may not be the same truth you're looking for, and sometimes you may have to accept certain types of cover-ups are possibly done for a good reason.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by john124]

reply to post by john124


I'll try to make my question not so vague.

Do you think Bush, Cheney knew before hand the towers were going

to be hit by airplanes.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by john124

 

I'll try to make my question not so vague.

Do you think Bush, Cheney knew before hand the towers were going

to be hit by airplanes.

I honestly don't know, but I doubt they were consciously aware that it would happen that day.

Were they aware of intelligence suggesting potential & imminent attacks? Possibly.

Does that make them mass-murderers on that day? No.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by john124]

Originally posted by mikelee
Regardless of what anyone says, video don't lie especially when this particular video was shown on worldwide televisions the day of 911. BEFORE WTC7 collapsed.

That is a static backdrop.
Its not a real window, its in a soundstage.
News stations do this frequently. I suppose that you think that the city that used to sit behind david letterman on latenight was real too?

reply to post by defcon5


Didn't the station admit that it was just an error in reporting? If she was in front of a green screen, why would the station use any other excuse? I would assume it was a set as well but the station reaction did not seem to fit that.

In the video there is a zoom. If she was in front of a screen instead of a window, that means that her cameraman had to perfectly time that zoom with the one already in the backdrop footage so it did not appear to zoom in behind her.

It was a window.

edit to change "in front of" to "instead of"

[edit on 1/28/10 by Lillydale]