WB says they used nuclear bombs to take the TT down.
His Proof, there was some radioactivity in the air after the the TTs fell, and some of the 911 responders got leukemia.
Can they do a controlled demolition with nuclear bombs?
No, there is no way to rig the TT with a bunch of little pocket sized nuclear bombs that can be used to take the building down.
There is such thing as a little nuclear bomb, and no one has ever used them for a controlled demolition of a building.
Case closed.
Can they do a controlled demolition with nuclear bombs?
No, there is no way to rig the TT with a bunch of little pocket sized nuclear bombs that can be used to take the building down
Yes it did but that wasn't the point. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights were a bothersome obstacle to even more trade and wealth.
Enfranchise everyone in order to create general prosperity ? That's downright socialist and unfair if you have privilege. Those people at our party ? Perish the thought... The USA gave up freedom in order to feel secure in the face of an enemy that didn't wear a sports team outfit (uniform). Globally and locally, it's all different now. Thanks for rolling over on the Patriot Act.
What did we all expect ? The bubble of free thinking from 1965 to 1980 had to end in the face of profit actually working. If you never made above $1,000,000.00 in a year, you weren't even number 3 on the invite list, and if invited, you'd better talk the talk with a wine glass held from the stem or you were silently busted.
All politics are local, especially if your locale is above the 30th floor.
This old event now, regardless of who and what, led to capitalizing on the maxim of,Never let a good crisis go unexploited...
the "CIT"--citizen's investigation team--is two young fellows from orange county who have traveled to DC many times, hunting down and interviewing eyewitnesses to what happened at the pentagon.
i hate to say it, but richard gage has refused to support these guys, in spite of the compelling evidence they've put together. i worked with gage for more than a year, and i found him to be rather controlling and also easily sidetracked, but he does what he does well, and he seems to be getting some increased attention recently, both on college campuses and on NPR. if there's interest, i could post the articles we wrote, but they're quite extensive, and i'd rather just refer people to global outlook, from which you can probably still buy a copy.
Tony, what I like about you is that you don't even pretend to understand science, so I can't blame you for "collaborating" with someone like Richard Gage. You're into folkore story-telling and he tells a good story, if you ignore the science.
CIT focused on one single aspect of the story, and they did it in spades. Their evidence is very damning, and real. Perhaps Gage sees it as a distraction to what he's put together.
While the biggest question is left unanswered, they prove a point. And that single anomaly, where the slip shows, is enough to expose the coverup. Lastly, the film makes the point, the implications are devastating. The big question is what happened to the plane, that's the unsolved mystery in this story.
Raymond, you're right, my bad. He was not "from inside" the Pentagon.
This sentence should read "An eye witness of the Pentagon attack..."
Seriously.
Out. Of. Here.
I must have misunderstood you. I thought that you meant that the witness was credible because he worked in Pentagen. Now I understand that you thought that the witness was credible because you liked what he said.
Mono that is far from obvious and been argued many times. If they had footage they would show it. Even the gas stations. You would at least think the 911 commission would have had priveledge.
But nope. Nothing but that 3 frame sh#t show.
What really happened? It sure wasn't an airliner. All this time with computer aided animations being the evidence. Just show some conclusive footage.
Funny how its also the same area that just was renovated.
Open your minds. This little concept should be easy to grasp.
If they had footage they would show it. Even the gas stations. You would at least think the 911 commission would have had priveledge.
You notice that the security camera footages from the gas stations and such haven't been released. There could be a number of reasons for this. One reason people suspect is that they show something other than a plane.
a second possibility is that they show a plane or show nothing. This focus on there not being a plan hitting the pentagon (and the controlled demolition of the towers) serves a wonderful function for the government that, as a minimum, allowed 9-11 to happen. It makes the "conspiracy" theory people look far out and fringe, and points everyone away from following the money, people and events like the war games and false blips on the radar screens from the war games. Nobody is talking much about the real damning stuff
Personally I don't know if the towers were brought down with explosives or not. I personally listened a guy who was an architect involved in designing the towers, (he said in collaborations with some japanese) He claimed they put in a demolition capability into the plans as it would be easier and cheaper that way and New York real Estate in that area where the option to tear down and rebuild was optimal.
I don't know what to think about that but note, since people don't think about it, that there was a previous bomb attack on the world trade center that people forget about since it's damage was so limited. Could have been an incentive, if the government was going to let the attack happen, (see project for a new american century's admitted need for such an attack and those guys were our government) that it be successful (and including the need to destroy evidence housed in the area regarding corrupt wall street firm investigations and the missing 2.3 trillion in the defense department
Well, they were pretty quick to confiscate surrounding footage from cameras.
Not to mention all the other cameras on the Pentagon. I can assure you there are more than 5 cameras on the parapet of the Pentagon pointing to it's perimeter. At least two of those would have said footage.
Now I understand that you thought that the witness was credible because you liked what he said.
Not true. I believe what he said because I thought he was being truthful about what he saw. And, in case you want to do some research, you'll find that others saw the same thing.
But true to the tee, I have shown that you will ignore those whose statements you do not want to believe, as predicted.
Raymond, have you watched Tony's video yet? Policemen, to me, make very credible witnesses. Especially when they bet their life on their written and spoken testimony. I know it's long, but because you seem interested in trying to debunk the Truth movement, the video might prove to be challenging to you. I'm interested to see how you might try to debunk, or ignore, the taped witnesses.
One thing is for sure: After watching the video, you'd be a fool to believe that the taxi was actually hit by Light Pole #1!
Let us know!