The Official JKB Conspiracy Theory Thread

[aussieh]

So, CTs say Bush and Co went to the extremes of Mass Murder in his own country to invade Iraq. But then blames it on Saudis.

Why did they not just blame 9/11 on Iraq?

No, he comes up with WMD to invade Iraq.

 

So he can silence everyone about 9/11, but cant silence anyone on WMD.

[aussieh]

47 seconds. That's all it takes to show that it's all lies. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biulding+sevenn9%2f11&&view=detail&mid=7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF&rvsmid=4427D88FF0ABB3E208A64427D88FF0ABB3E208A6&FORM=VDQVAP&fsscr=0

Did you set that page up?.

biuldingsevenn7.

[H1B5 Owner]

Sorry, forgot link to the molten steel page:

 

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

Enjoy.

 

As Colombo would ask. "One more thing..."

 

A curious point here for CTs . So either 9/11 was completely staged, but i don't remember Bin Laden and Al Qaeda screaming they were being set up as patsies. And from all the angles, roughly how many people would have to be in on this?

 

Or the attacks were allowed to happen in which case panes DID hit the buildings etc etc. Thoughts?

[maroonlegions]

From my previously posted link. Professional view of the ranking fire officer on site at WTC7 on the day. Apologies, had to screenshot:

 

 

Another page from the site on the topic of molten steel. Again many plausible explanations for what was observed and what can be discounted. Given the millions of unrepeatable variables on the day, the full picture will never be completely known. So in absence of this, a balanced view will take the most likely scenario given the FULL evidence available - and conspiracy isn't it.

 

One thing that does not add up with me in regards to the above statement from fire chief is this below;

 

"For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility)" 

 

 There is evidence to show that the fire chief DID in fact consult with a one Larry Silverstein , there is a video of Silverstein saying he was consulted.Silverstein made that statement of being consulted on a PSB documentary called "America Rebuilds".

 

Maybe Silverstein was too stupid to realize to what he was saying at the time ,who knows. but let's reiterate  the obvious contradictions below from both the fire chief  and Silverstein;

 

 

 "I REMEMBER GETTING A CALL FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER , telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire and i said just pull it". Larry Silverstein; 

 

"For these reasons i made the decision, (WITHOUT CONSULTING THE OWNER, MAYOUR OR ANYONE ELSE)...   Dan fire chief officer;

 

Also was the "IT"  from the "PULL IT"reference said by Silverstein referring to the fire chief's  firemen?? Because according to FEMA,NIST, and Frank Fellini, the assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time , there were not any firefighters in that building??

 

 My personal gripe with the official explanations of the whole 9/11  tragedy is why did Silverstein make that comment of being consulted by the fire chief  when the fire chief stated he consulted NOBODY??  Maybe the fire chief did not even call him.

 

 When liars and guilty people are confronted with questions , they often make ridiculous statements that often incriminate themselves or others. Why do they do this?? I"m no psychologist but it happens.

 

The problem with lies is that it's so much harder to stick to it than the truth , whatever that may be in regards to this sad event and the manifestation of contradictions usually surface. The arguments of the "PULL IT"  quote by Silverstein and the fire chiefs  quote of not consulting anyone is a fine line between a contradiction  and another meaning taken out of context.

 

To me it's not a matter of who called who first .Its a matter of Silverstein saying he got a call from the fire chief and the fire chief saying he did  NOT consult Silverstein at all.That is the primary problem and concern i  have here with the fire chief  original statement.

 

 So what one of them is not telling the truth, not saying the NYFD had anything to do with the  "controlled detonation " argument , that would just be insulting to the sad loss of so many firemen that day, but the contradiction of both men's statements is  a nagging contradiction i feel uncomfortable with.

 

Did Silverstein have anything to gain here, yip he did  building insurance for  he owned WTC 7,  more to the point can people be easily bought off , kind of selling their conscience for the right price,just saying like.  lol; 

 

 

 WTC 7;

$386 million invested 

$861 million Court awarded payout 

_________ 

 

$475 million profit 

 

  http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html

 

 firefightersfor911truth.org... 

 

 

SPANISH SKYSCRAPER FIRE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 COLLAPSES 

Edited February 14, 2016 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

Sorry, forgot link to the molten steel page:

 

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

Enjoy.

 

As Colombo would ask. "One more thing..."

 

A curious point here for CTs . So either 9/11 was completely staged, but i don't remember Bin Laden and Al Qaeda screaming they were being set up as patsies. And from all the angles, roughly how many people would have to be in on this?

 

Or the attacks were allowed to happen in which case panes DID hit the buildings etc etc. Thoughts?

 

 

Fair enough but this report differs and while it admits that this section of  an  A36 WIDE  BEAM  of steel"s exact location  could not be determined it is none  the less interesting; 

 

 

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7" 

by J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr. 

 

JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 18. 

 

www.tms.org... 

Edited February 14, 2016 by maroonlegions

[aussieh]

One thing that does not add up with me in regards to the above statement from fire chief is this below;

 

"For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility)"

 

There is evidence to show that the fire chief DID in fact consult with a one Larry Silverstein , there is a video of Silverstein saying he was consulted.Silverstein made that statement of being consulted on a PSB documentary called "America Rebuilds".

 

Maybe Silverstein was too stupid to realize to what he was saying at the time ,who knows. but let's reiterate the obvious contradictions below from both the fire chief and Silverstein;

 

 

"I REMEMBER GETTING A CALL FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER , telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire and i said just pull it". Larry Silverstein;

 

"For these reasons i made the decision, (WITHOUT CONSULTING THE OWNER, MAYOUR OR ANYONE ELSE)... Dan fire chief officer;

 

Also was the "IT" from the "PULL IT"reference said by Silverstein referring to the fire chief's firemen?? Because according to FEMA,NIST, and Frank Fellini, the assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time , there were not any firefighters in that building??

 

My personal gripe with the official explanations of the whole 9/11 tragedy is why did Silverstein make that comment of being consulted by the fire chief when the fire chief stated he consulted NOBODY?? Maybe the fire chief did not even call him.

 

When liars and guilty people are confronted with questions , they often make ridiculous statements that often incriminate themselves or others. Why do they do this?? I"m no psychologist but it happens.

 

The problem with lies is that it's so much harder to stick to it than the truth , whatever that may be in regards to this sad event and the manifestation of contradictions usually surface. The arguments of the "PULL IT" quote by Silverstein and the fire chiefs quote of not consulting anyone is a fine line between a contradiction and another meaning taken out of context.

 

To me it's not a matter of who called who first .Its a matter of Silverstein saying he got a call from the fire chief and the fire chief saying he did NOT consult Silverstein at all.That is the primary problem and concern i have here with the fire chief original statement.

 

So what one of them is not telling the truth, not saying the NYFD had anything to do with the "controlled detonation " argument , that would just be insulting to the sad loss of so many firemen that day, but the contradiction of both men's statements is a nagging contradiction i feel uncomfortable with.

 

Did Silverstein have anything to gain here, yip he did building insurance for he owned WTC 7, more to the point can people be easily bought off , kind of selling their conscience for the right price,just saying like. lol;

 

 

WTC 7;

$386 million invested

$861 million Court awarded payout

_________

 

$475 million profit

 

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html

 

firefightersfor911truth.org...

 

 

SPANISH SKYSCRAPER FIRE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 COLLAPSES

Shite after shite, there's no point talking to people that don't listen.

You could take you via the tardis to watch this and you'd still say it was a government mass murder.

 

Like Stephen said teach who'll listen, which means in his and your case, brainwash the children.

 

Why has the video of the Wtc7 been cut short by Jones and the CT moonmen.

 

I just see Ace Ventura tiptoeing on bubble wrap in the nuthouse, everytime nibs, you and whoever post this pish.

Using extra words or omitted words as evidence for controlled demolition.

Edited February 14, 2016 by aussieh

[niblick1874]

One thing that does not add up with me in regards to the above statement from fire chief is this below;

 

"For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility)" 

 

 There is evidence to show that the fire chief DID in fact consult with a one Larry Silverstein , there is a video of Silverstein saying he was consulted.Silverstein made that statement of being consulted on a PSB documentary called "America Rebuilds".

 

Maybe Silverstein was too stupid to realize to what he was saying at the time ,who knows. but let's reiterate  the obvious contradictions below from both the fire chief  and Silverstein;

 

 

 "I REMEMBER GETTING A CALL FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER , telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire and i said just pull it". Larry Silverstein; 

 

"For these reasons i made the decision, (WITHOUT CONSULTING THE OWNER, MAYOUR OR ANYONE ELSE)...   Dan fire chief officer;

 

Also was the "IT"  from the "PULL IT"reference said by Silverstein referring to the fire chief's  firemen?? Because according to FEMA,NIST, and Frank Fellini, the assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time , there were not any firefighters in that building??

 

 My personal gripe with the official explanations of the whole 9/11  tragedy is why did Silverstein make that comment of being consulted by the fire chief  when the fire chief stated he consulted NOBODY??  Maybe the fire chief did not even call him.

 

 When liars and guilty people are confronted with questions , they often make ridiculous statements that often incriminate themselves or others. Why do they do this?? I"m no psychologist but it happens.

 

The problem with lies is that it's so much harder to stick to it than the truth , whatever that may be in regards to this sad event and the manifestation of contradictions usually surface. The arguments of the "PULL IT"  quote by Silverstein and the fire chiefs  quote of not consulting anyone is a fine line between a contradiction  and another meaning taken out of context.

 

To me it's not a matter of who called who first .Its a matter of Silverstein saying he got a call from the fire chief and the fire chief saying he did  NOT consult Silverstein at all.That is the primary problem and concern i  have here with the fire chief  original statement.

 

 So what one of them is not telling the truth, not saying the NYFD had anything to do with the  "controlled detonation " argument , that would just be insulting to the sad loss of so many firemen that day, but the contradiction of both men's statements is  a nagging contradiction i feel uncomfortable with.

 

Did Silverstein have anything to gain here, yip he did  building insurance for  he owned WTC 7,  more to the point can people be easily bought off , kind of selling their conscience for the right price,just saying like.  lol; 

 

 

 WTC 7;

$386 million invested 

$861 million Court awarded payout 

_________ 

 

$475 million profit 

 

  http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html

 

 firefightersfor911truth.org... 

 

 

SPANISH SKYSCRAPER FIRE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 COLLAPSES 

Yep

 

You have the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein saying that after talking to the fire department commander he decided to pull it http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Pull+It+WTC+7&&view=detail&mid=6EAB157F3B919FA50A7A6EAB157F3B919FA50A7A&FORM=VRDGAR (controlled demolition) and then the fire department commander saying no such conversation took place. Add to that the New York Police Chief being hailed as a hero then being thrown in jail for corruption  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Pull+It+WTC+7&&view=detail&mid=6EAB157F3B919FA50A7A6EAB157F3B919FA50A7A&FORM=VRDGAR. The thousands of files on corporate and Stock fraud that were lost forever including some real biggies (WorldCom, Enron). 5.30 in  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biulding+sevenn9%2f11&&view=detail&mid=8939FC80112169ED3FFC8939FC80112169ED3FFC&rvsmid=4427D88FF0ABB3E208A64427D88FF0ABB3E208A6&FORM=VDMCNR&fsscr=0.

 

Then you have your own eyes  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biulding+sevenn9%2f11&&view=detail&mid=7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF&rvsmid=4427D88FF0ABB3E208A64427D88FF0ABB3E208A6&FORM=VDMCNL&fsscr=0

Edited February 14, 2016 by niblick1874

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Sorry, forgot link to the molten steel page:

 

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

Enjoy.

 

As Colombo would ask. "One more thing..."

 

A curious point here for CTs . So either 9/11 was completely staged, but i don't remember Bin Laden and Al Qaeda screaming they were being set up as patsies. And from all the angles, roughly how many people would have to be in on this?

 

Or the attacks were allowed to happen in which case panes DID hit the buildings etc etc. Thoughts?

Don't worry yourself about it. Up the page we had a video claiming the aircraft hits were faked, then we had a drone theory, then we had that the planes did crash but the buildings were blown up.

 

SOMETHING EVIL HAPPENED but they can't decide what it was!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I see resident Infowars loonball Alex Jones is backing Wiggo Trump for POTUS.

 

There's a match made in hell!

[maroonlegions]

Interesting take on the new X-Files series, seems that the director is focusing more on the  police surveillance state he sees as a possible future outcome of current world global policies. The noose getting tighter on the erosion of freedoms with the increase in surveillance.

 

 

 

 

  X-Files 2016 Exposes the Non-Fictional Police State in a Jaw Dropping 3 Minute Clip

When asked if I had viewed the new X-Files by a friend, I answered ?no.? Their eyes widened; the normally casual voice heightened. ?But you have to, it?s something else this time!? I sighed, rolled my own eyes ? thoughts about the articles and other ?

ANONHQ.COM

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2016 by maroonlegions

[H1B5 Owner]

Don't worry yourself about it. Up the page we had a video claiming the aircraft hits were faked, then we had a drone theory, then we had that the planes did crash but the buildings were blown up.

 

SOMETHING EVIL HAPPENED but they can't decide what it was!

Had a chuckle through all that. Moved the goalposts so often anyone would think they were preparing for a game against Sevco ?

[Deodato]

My favourite conspiracy rant is the one about man not landing on the moon.

 

You cannae whack hearing that one from someone who really believes it was a set up.

 

 

JKB seems to be polluted by conspiracy shit in several threads so maybe it can all be kept in here and the leave the adults to discuss the real world in other threads.

 

Is YouTube one of your sources?

Do you like little collages with words promoting the truth next to them?

Do you think you and a small bunch of random internet randoms are the only ones clever enough to see the truth?

Do you use the words 'The truth' regularly?

 

Then this thread is for you, go wild. Be all clever in here and enlighten the world with all your knowledge you garnered from obscure websites and YouTube clips with dramatic music.

 

P.S. The truth is out there.

P.S.S. Yes I am an agent of the state paid to troll the internet to the hide the truth from the masses.

[H1B5 Owner]

One thing that does not add up with me in regards to the above statement from fire chief is this below;

 

"For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility)"

 

There is evidence to show that the fire chief DID in fact consult with a one Larry Silverstein , there is a video of Silverstein saying he was consulted.Silverstein made that statement of being consulted on a PSB documentary called "America Rebuilds".

 

Maybe Silverstein was too stupid to realize to what he was saying at the time ,who knows. but let's reiterate the obvious contradictions below from both the fire chief and Silverstein;

 

 

"I REMEMBER GETTING A CALL FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER , telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire and i said just pull it". Larry Silverstein;

 

"For these reasons i made the decision, (WITHOUT CONSULTING THE OWNER, MAYOUR OR ANYONE ELSE)... Dan fire chief officer;

 

Also was the "IT" from the "PULL IT"reference said by Silverstein referring to the fire chief's firemen?? Because according to FEMA,NIST, and Frank Fellini, the assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time , there were not any firefighters in that building??

 

My personal gripe with the official explanations of the whole 9/11 tragedy is why did Silverstein make that comment of being consulted by the fire chief when the fire chief stated he consulted NOBODY?? Maybe the fire chief did not even call him.

 

When liars and guilty people are confronted with questions , they often make ridiculous statements that often incriminate themselves or others. Why do they do this?? I"m no psychologist but it happens.

 

The problem with lies is that it's so much harder to stick to it than the truth , whatever that may be in regards to this sad event and the manifestation of contradictions usually surface. The arguments of the "PULL IT" quote by Silverstein and the fire chiefs quote of not consulting anyone is a fine line between a contradiction and another meaning taken out of context.

 

To me it's not a matter of who called who first .Its a matter of Silverstein saying he got a call from the fire chief and the fire chief saying he did NOT consult Silverstein at all.That is the primary problem and concern i have here with the fire chief original statement.

 

So what one of them is not telling the truth, not saying the NYFD had anything to do with the "controlled detonation " argument , that would just be insulting to the sad loss of so many firemen that day, but the contradiction of both men's statements is a nagging contradiction i feel uncomfortable with.

 

Did Silverstein have anything to gain here, yip he did building insurance for he owned WTC 7, more to the point can people be easily bought off , kind of selling their conscience for the right price,just saying like. lol;

 

 

WTC 7;

$386 million invested

$861 million Court awarded payout

_________

 

$475 million profit

 

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html

 

firefightersfor911truth.org...

 

 

SPANISH SKYSCRAPER FIRE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 COLLAPSES

ML, they do disagree on the call, though looking around a bit more it's suggested he may have spoken to someone under the impression it was the chief, reasonable enough given the confusion of the day.

 

So supposing Silverstein was in on the multimillion dollar plan to blow WTC7 (as part of the wider planned plot for the WTC as a whole) that was months (years?) in planning. First I'd make DAMN sure that any action and contact on the day was noted in detail so as to be beyond reproach.

 

So why then a whole year later bring up a contestable story about the Fire Dept phone call including a comment that could in any way be construed as saying they were going to blow up WTC7.

 

Even if "Pull it" was meant as suggested by CTs that would imply that the NYFD was also in on a conspiracy that killed hundreds of their own.

 

Alternative theory.

No conspiracy, in the confusion of the day Silverstein gets a call from NYFD discussing WTC and the fate of the building. Rightly worried about future loss of life after the WTC collapses suggests pulling firefighters out. In reflection thinks the call came from the fire chief. Meanwhile, unaware of the call, the chief makes the call independently.

 

Can't tell folk what to believe, but if I was a juror presented those two versions of events I know which I'd give more credence to.

 

ML, who were you suggesting might have been bought off at the end there? It wasn't clear Thanks.

[H1B5 Owner]

Yep

 

You have the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein saying that after talking to the fire department commander he decided to pull it http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Pull+It+WTC+7&&view=detail&mid=6EAB157F3B919FA50A7A6EAB157F3B919FA50A7A&FORM=VRDGAR (controlled demolition) and then the fire department commander saying no such conversation took place. Add to that the New York Police Chief being hailed as a hero then being thrown in jail for corruption http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Pull+It+WTC+7&&view=detail&mid=6EAB157F3B919FA50A7A6EAB157F3B919FA50A7A&FORM=VRDGAR. The thousands of files on corporate and Stock fraud that were lost forever including some real biggies (WorldCom, Enron). 5.30 in http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biulding+sevenn9%2f11&&view=detail&mid=8939FC80112169ED3FFC8939FC80112169ED3FFC&rvsmid=4427D88FF0ABB3E208A64427D88FF0ABB3E208A6&FORM=VDMCNR&fsscr=0.

 

Then you have your own eyes

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biulding+sevenn9%2f11&&view=detail&mid=7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF&rvsmid=4427D88FF0ABB3E208A64427D88FF0ABB3E208A6&FORM=VDMCNL&fsscr=0

You're welcome to read this link niblick.

 

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

Explains in quite some detail how the building came down. Would like to hear your views on the points made. Cheers

[H1B5 Owner]

Seems the appropriate place to put this.

 

Rangers boss Mark Warburton: We have proof plastic pitch caused Martyn Waghorn's injury

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-boss-mark-warburton-proof-7405840#ICID=ios_DailyRecordNewsApp_AppShare_Click_Twitter

 

Must've fallen "back and to the left, back and to the left..."

[Stephen Muddie]

It's interesting to note that, in the most recent posts here, derogatory comments are made towards those posting theories and testimonies earlier in the thread.

Here are my observations of what's going on in the thread: Geoff's pretty correct, something evil (or at least deliberate if you don't believe in the concept of morality and/or regularly bash religious people I suppose) happened and people can't decide what it was.

There appear to be deliberate attempts by many posters to derail the thread from any kind of investigative, thought-provoking basis. Now that I've seen what the original post contained, I am not at all surprised. There appears to be a firm refusal by all involved to discuss the temperature at which steel melts.

Am I a conspiracy theorist, to be lumped in with anyone else on the thread who the pack don't agree with? Not sure. I'm not buttoned up the back and know what mind control is. Keep on boxing and labelling people, kids. The connotations of us being lied to so badly are massive and I know you're all scared.

Peace xxx

[aussieh]

It's interesting to note that, in the most recent posts here, derogatory comments are made towards those posting theories and testimonies earlier in the thread.

 

Here are my observations of what's going on in the thread: Geoff's pretty correct, something evil (or at least deliberate if you don't believe in the concept of morality and/or regularly bash religious people I suppose) happened and people can't decide what it was.

 

There appear to be deliberate attempts by many posters to derail the thread from any kind of investigative, thought-provoking basis. Now that I've seen what the original post contained, I am not at all surprised. There appears to be a firm refusal by all involved to discuss the temperature at which steel melts.

 

Am I a conspiracy theorist, to be lumped in with anyone else on the thread who the pack don't agree with? Not sure. I'm not buttoned up the back and know what mind control is. Keep on boxing and labelling people, kids. The connotations of us being lied to so badly are massive and I know you're all scared.

 

Peace xxx

Hypocrite.

[Norm]

There appears to be a firm refusal by all involved to discuss the temperature at which steel melts.

 

Why would you discuss the melting point of steel? Edited February 20, 2016 by Normthebarman

[H1B5 Owner]

It's interesting to note that, in the most recent posts here, derogatory comments are made towards those posting theories and testimonies earlier in the thread.

 

Here are my observations of what's going on in the thread: Geoff's pretty correct, something evil (or at least deliberate if you don't believe in the concept of morality and/or regularly bash religious people I suppose) happened and people can't decide what it was.

 

There appear to be deliberate attempts by many posters to derail the thread from any kind of investigative, thought-provoking basis. Now that I've seen what the original post contained, I am not at all surprised. There appears to be a firm refusal by all involved to discuss the temperature at which steel melts.

 

Am I a conspiracy theorist, to be lumped in with anyone else on the thread who the pack don't agree with? Not sure. I'm not buttoned up the back and know what mind control is. Keep on boxing and labelling people, kids. The connotations of us being lied to so badly are massive and I know you're all scared.

 

Peace xxx

Ooookay.

 

Someone correct me but didn't i make a few posts a little while back for reasoned discussion or was i dreaming?

 

Welcome to review those and comment on their validity Stephen or anyone else.

 

 

[niblick1874]

You're welcome to read this link niblick.

 

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

Explains in quite some detail how the building came down. Would like to hear your views on the points made. Cheers

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biulding+sevenn9%2F11&&view=detail&mid=7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF&rvsmid=4427D88FF0ABB3E208A64427D88FF0ABB3E208A6&FORM=VDMCNL&fsscr=0  I will believe my own eyes and ears thank you very much.

[H1B5 Owner]

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biulding+sevenn9%2F11&&view=detail&mid=7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF&rvsmid=4427D88FF0ABB3E208A64427D88FF0ABB3E208A6&FORM=VDMCNL&fsscr=0 I will believe my own eyes and ears thank you very much.

Hmmm, going with just one possible explanation of just one video (Original source?) at one particular angle. Not very open minded ?

 

I see your clip and raise you this:

 

 

Same windows blow but no flashes. Possible it's reflection of setting sun as glass bows before braking?

 

Btw the video also shows REAL controlled demolitions. Bit more than a firecracker needed.

 

Also a hell of a lot of gear needed for demo job. Quote from vid:

 

 

Query: Why not blow WTC7 when the towers first came down and use the chaos and dust as cover rather than risk discovery, or that fires would set off the charges in an uncontrolled manner?

 

To summarise from previously posted link, WTC7 had been hit by tower debris leaving a 20 storey gash down one side. The fires started then burned unchecked across much of this area for about 6 hours. Firefighters also witnessed a bulge in the SW corner over some 3 storeys. They had a pretty good idea then that the building would come down at some point so we're pulled out shortly after.

 

Any wonder it collapsed?

[Riddley Walker]

Hibs Owner has, objectively, provided a much, much stronger case for Tower 7 being brought down through being bit by debris then the fire. The debunking link blows anything else out of the water.

 

That youtube video does not provide evidence, only conjecture niblick. If you are as open-minded as you say you are then you must acknowledge this.

 

The witness statements are overwhelming and the latching onto to the "pull it" statement is laughable.

[maroonlegions]

Hibs Owner has, objectively, provided a much, much stronger case for Tower 7 being brought down through being bit by debris then the fire. The debunking link blows anything else out of the water.

 

That youtube video does not provide evidence, only conjecture niblick. If you are as open-minded as you say you are then you must acknowledge this.

 

The witness statements are overwhelming and the latching onto to the "pull it" statement is laughable.

 

About as laughable  as believing that a man in a cave organised one of the greatest attacks on American soil , that was 9/11.

 

You can laugh all you like at witnesses from the 9/11 truth movement, and all those professionals that do not accept or trust the official bul shoite explanation, you can also laugh to yer hearts content at those within the 9/11 truth movement that have lost loved ones on that day, you can pesh yourself too at the amount of professionals from all areas of  the building and construction industry that have shown real discrepancies with the official "alice in wonderland" like  explanations of how   WCT7 collapsed but i will not.

 

There is enough evidence and witnesses on the rejection side of the official explanations too, if there was not then you could laugh all you want but  the fact that there  is  professionals and witnesses who reject the official story stops me from joining you in  laughing  at anyone or anything that dares reject the official story of 9/11.  

 

I take it you have looked at all the information provided from various professionals on the 9/11 truth website and come ay 100% convinced that the official explanations for 9/11 are still credible.??

Edited February 29, 2016 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

There is one reality that often raises concerns and that particular reality is  not always from conspiracy theorists and that reality  is the increasing rise in surveillance.  

 

There  are of course two ways of looking at increased levels of surveillance;

 

1;One it's for the benefit  and security of the citizen, the nothing to hide , nothing to fear argument will of course by its very nature hold those points and defend it by these points at every opportunity;

 

2; Surveillance of citizens and its increase is a measure of the nature of those in control or those who wish that every avenue of our lives are to be  watched for the agenda of  control and manipulation.  Then again it's because our masters love us that much they want to spy on us more because  they TRUST us so much..

 

 

 

This documentary ,for me any way, sheds some very interesting transparencies on the nature and meaning of "surveillance" , were does it end?? to what acceptable degrees  can citizens be  expected to be spied on??  and when concerns are raised on increased surveillance  can  this increase  be a front for the  "under the disguise of "terrorism" seems to  be an effective smoke screen for total mass surveillance of the populace. 

 

Below is a snippet from the source link to the real discrepancies and concerns of mass surveillance from  NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden's perspective,

 

 

you can download the full movie in English here:

SD-Resolution (1,1 GB) Download
HD-resolution (3,4 GB) Download

Yes, it is really legal and free to download, because of the funny fact that the documentary is part of the evidence that will be used in upcoming trials in the Snowden case.

 

 

"In January 2013, filmmaker Laura Poitras received an encrypted e-mail from a stranger who called himself Citizen Four. In it, he offered her inside information about illegal wire-tapping practices of the NSA and other intelligence agencies. Poitras had already been working for several years on a film about mass surveillance programs in the United States, and so in June 2013, she went to Hong Kong with her camera for the first meeting with the stranger, who identified himself as Edward Snowden. She was met there by investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian intelligence reporter Ewen MacAskill. Several other meetings followed. Citizenfour is based on the recordings from these meetings. What follows is the largest confirmations of mass surveillance using official documents themselves, the world has never seen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by maroonlegions

[Riddley Walker]

About as laughable as believing that a man in a cave organised one of the greatest attacks on American soil , that was 9/11.

 

You can laugh all you like at witnesses from the 9/11 truth movement, and all those professionals that do not accept or trust the official bul shoite explanation, you can also laugh to yer hearts content at those within the 9/11 truth movement that have lost loved ones on that day, you can pesh yourself too at the amount of professionals from all areas of the building and construction industry that have shown real discrepancies with the official "alice in wonderland" like explanations of how WCT7 collapsed but i will not.

 

There is enough evidence and witnesses on the rejection side of the official explanations too, if there was not then you could laugh all you want but the fact that there is professionals and witnesses who reject the official story stops me from joining you in laughing at anyone or anything that dares reject the official story of 9/11.

 

I take it you have looked at all the information provided from various professionals on the 9/11 truth website and come ay 100% convinced that the official explanations for 9/11 are still credible.??

I'm completely willing to be objective about this ML. Having looked at both arguments for what happened to Tower 7, the one presented by the link Hibs Owner posted earlier on the thread is overwhelming, due to the fact it provides proof and coherent, structured argument with witnesses whose stories aren't garbled and illiterate. The problem with the truth websites is that they are based on conjecture. Again, I'm being objective about this.

 

If you think Bin Laden was only a "man in a cave" then you are either being deliberately dismissive or you know nothing about him.

 

At least you're engaging on this thread again ML,

[maroonlegions]

Hibs Owner has, objectively, provided a much, much stronger case for Tower 7 being brought down through being bit by debris then the fire. The debunking link blows anything else out of the water.

 

That youtube video does not provide evidence, only conjecture niblick. If you are as open-minded as you say you are then you must acknowledge this.

 

The witness statements are overwhelming and the latching onto to the "pull it" statement is laughable.

 

 

 

 

Bill Cooper?s 9/11 Prediction and Death

January 14th, 2016 | by EV

  This Article (Bill Cooper?s 9/11 Prediction and Death) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com. Sources:...

[maroonlegions]

I'm completely willing to be objective about this ML. Having looked at both arguments for what happened to Tower 7, the one presented by the link Hibs Owner posted earlier on the thread is overwhelming, due to the fact it provides proof and coherent, structured argument with witnesses whose stories aren't garbled and illiterate. The problem with the truth websites is that they are based on conjecture. Again, I'm being objective about this.

 

If you think Bin Laden was only a "man in a cave" then you are either being deliberately dismissive or you know nothing about him.

 

At least you're engaging on this thread again ML,

 

 

Well while i have no issues with the argument that some truth movements contained  a fair share of  conjecture it is not the case wit the 9/11 truth website, we are discussing the 9/11 truth website  here and none other. If you had looked at most of the evidence some professionals provide on that website you could not fail to admit or even acknowledge that there IS substance and evidence that casts serious doubts and believability of some accounts from the official explanations of 9/11. In fact i could claim also that the 9/11 web site and some of its sources , that is from professional sources, that they  also contain coherent and structural  counter arguments of the official 9/11 explanation.  

 

To me its laughable that   debris was accountable fir the collapse of WTC7 , even if it was are we to accept that debris was reasonable for a building it collapse in the EXACT way a building would if it was brought down from a controlled explosion??

 

This building came down in a perfect "pancake"  like way , that's the facts here , totally in line with  a reasoned and credible scientific thesis of how many buildings have collapsed due to controlled explosions., that is one massive discrepancy with me personally.

 

The thing is with me i believe that any truthful event, saying, or telling of a truthful event  that  truth has to be "Water tight", for such is the NATURE of  truth  in its nakedness, is stands on is own , it needs no  help nor does it need contradictions but with 9/11 we do NOT get that water tight story , in fact was the first official 9/1 explanation not laughed  out of court and so out of touch?? Why is that??  

 

But lies are so much harder to maintain, contradictions will manifest, discrepancies will manifest   such is the way of lies and those who defend them, manifestation of discrepancy or doubt are always present with lies or untruths, we have this from the official 9/11 explanations and for that reason i am out,  i cannot trust SERIAL liars in ordinary life and its no different with official stories  and explanations n matter how convincing they may appear, its all about personal intuition , if your gut says no they that sometimes can be enough and it is for me concerning this whole sad affair of 9/11.     FTH . 

Edited February 29, 2016 by maroonlegions

[niblick1874]

Well while i have no issues with the argument that some truth movements contained  a fair share of  conjecture it is not the case wit the 9/11 truth website, we are discussing the 9/11 truth website  here and none other. If you had looked at most of the evidence some professionals provide on that website you could not fail to admit or even acknowledge that there IS substance and evidence that casts serious doubts and believability of some accounts from the official explanations of 9/11. In fact i could claim also that the 9/11 web site and some of its sources , that is from professional sources, that they  also contain coherent and structural  counter arguments of the official 9/11 explanation.  

 

To me its laughable that   debris was accountable fir the collapse of WTC7 , even if it was are we to accept that debris was reasonable for a building it collapse in the EXACT way a building would if it was brought down from a controlled explosion??

 

This building came down in a perfect "pancake"  like way , that's the facts here , totally in line with  a reasoned and credible scientific thesis of how many buildings have collapsed due to controlled explosions., that is one massive discrepancy with me personally.

 

The thing is with me i believe that any truthful event, saying, or telling of a truthful event  that  truth has to be "Water tight", for such is the NATURE of  truth  in its nakedness, is stands on is own , it needs no  help nor does it need contradictions but with 9/11 we do NOT get that water tight story , in fact was the first official 9/1 explanation not laughed  out of court and so out of touch?? Why is that??  

 

But lies are so much harder to maintain, contradictions will manifest, discrepancies will manifest   such is the way of lies and those who defend them, manifestation of discrepancy or doubt are always present with lies or untruths, we have this from the official 9/11 explanations and for that reason i am out,  i cannot trust SERIAL liars in ordinary life and its no different with official stories  and explanations n matter how convincing they may appear, its all about personal intuition , if your gut says no they that sometimes can be enough and it is for me concerning this whole sad affair of 9/11.     FTH . 

It really is laughable. You have experts in their field from all around the world, with no ulterior motive, telling everyone one thing and you have this complete joke of a salesman that was in charge of the official investigation (NIST) coming out with this complete shite (lying).   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX1TjiZawc8

 

They claim on here that the molten metal under the buildings came from the aluminum from the plain mixing with water but when I point out that there was at least as much molten metal underneath building seven (NASA thermal images.com at 5.10 in the link)  and no plain hit it, nothing.

 

I show a vid of building seven coming down and you can clearly see and hear the explosions all the way down both sides of the building  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biulding+sevenn9%2F11&&view=detail&mid=7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF7C63DB9D1C124ECA12CF&rvsmid=4427D88FF0ABB3E208A64427D88FF0ABB3E208A6&FORM=VDMCNL&fsscr=0 and they get back with curtains blowing out and sunlight.

 

They'll be telling us the moon is made of cheese next.  

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So if WTC7 is a "smoking gun", why go to the bother of blowing that building up with no one inside it?

 

Oh "they" blew the towers up? So why did "they" blow the towers up with people inside them and not WTC7? Also, why did "they" go to the bother of crashing planes into a building?

 

There's no coherent logic. If WTC7 hadn't fallen down it would have been demolished as it wasn't safe to leave it standing.

[niblick1874]

Geoff this is the problem with this debate and this thread, one side is held to a different standard than the other.  The CT only has to find possible problems in the official version, they don't need a timeline, a motive, logic, or even one single possible alternative.  If you look at the 911 Truth site they talk about it gives several different alternatives for all of the events that happened that day.

 

Rather than argue about what caused the collapse of any building, can anyone who does not believe the official and accepted version of events please give me a brief description of what did happen that day.

 

For example, how many planes were hijacked, what happened to these planes, what happened at each of the 'crash' locations etc.

 

Thanks

 

(PS No You Tube Links, in your own words)

No.

If you, or anyone else on this planet can explain to everyone why the molten metal is underneath building seven, go for it, if not, it is a lie and it is up to you to figure out why and not for me to explain it to you. Are you really telling everyone that because you can't figure out why they lied, they didn't? That's sad.

[Riddley Walker]

Occasionally I come back and post on this thread but it really is absolutely pointless. Completely epitomised by Niblick's post above. Brian D asked you a perfectly valid question, in an objective manner while not trolling in any way. Instead of trying to engage you post your usual shite and throw in an insult. You are wasting everyone's time.

 

Niblick: Post a ****ing explanation, an outline, anything really of what you think may have happened that day and you might gain more respect. Please do this instead of subjecting everyone to your tedious pish. And no, I'm not going to watch one of your Youtube videos. They provide absolutely zero evidence of anything and are cobbled together with meaningless conjecture. Unsurprisingly, and similar to the truth websites, the literacy levels of the creators are equivalent to that of a six-year old child who has missed a year of school.

 

Discussing conjecture is absolutely fine and part of the debate but when you repeatedly refuse to entertain anybody else's questions you just come across like you are: a total fraud with no grip on reality.

 

Please surprise me and post a wee outline or something of what you think may have happened. Repeating the claims of an unsubstantiated witness is not evidence by the way, and it is not proof that anyone lied.

[Maple Leaf]

Occasionally I come back and post on this thread but it really is absolutely pointless. Completely epitomised by Niblick's post above. Brian D asked you a perfectly valid question, in an objective manner while not trolling in any way. Instead of trying to engage you post your usual shite and throw in an insult. You are wasting everyone's time.

 

Niblick: Post a ******* explanation, an outline, anything really of what you think may have happened that day and you might gain more respect. Please do this instead of subjecting everyone to your tedious pish. And no, I'm not going to watch one of your Youtube videos. They provide absolutely zero evidence of anything and are cobbled together with meaningless conjecture. Unsurprisingly, and similar to the truth websites, the literacy levels of the creators are equivalent to that of a six-year old child who has missed a year of school.

 

Discussing conjecture is absolutely fine and part of the debate but when you repeatedly refuse to entertain anybody else's questions you just come across like you are: a total fraud with no grip on reality.

 

Please surprise me and post a wee outline or something of what you think may have happened. Repeating the claims of an unsubstantiated witness is not evidence by the way, and it is not proof that anyone lied.

 

You aren't the first poster who has tried this approach.  Good luck.  Everyone else, including me, has failed to get a reasonable response.

 

I exchanged opposing views with one of the CT people about the 9/11 disaster at the Pentagon, and in the end I asked "OK, if an airliner didn't hit the Pentagon, what DID happen there, and where is the missing airliner and its passengers?"

 

The answer I got was "I don't know and I don't care.  All I know is that the government story is a pack of lies."

 

At that point, I decided that there was little value in continuing the discussion.

[Bridge of Djoum]

No.

If you, or anyone else on this planet can explain to everyone why the molten metal is underneath building seven, go for it, if not, it is a lie and it is up to you to figure out why and not for me to explain it to you. Are you really telling everyone that because you can't figure out why they lied, they didn't? That's sad.

Empty can response.

[H1B5 Owner]

Just caught up with thread, good stuff.

 

Also happened across this. Too good to let slide.

 

 

Still happy to discuss the merits of the

counter CT points i made re WTC7.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Tazio]

His Nibs seems to have bowed out of this one now, maybe we have convinced him.

Nope. Just the usual tactic of lying low for a while after posting a catastrophic statement.

[Riddley Walker]

You aren't the first poster who has tried this approach. Good luck. Everyone else, including me, has failed to get a reasonable response.

 

I exchanged opposing views with one of the CT people about the 9/11 disaster at the Pentagon, and in the end I asked "OK, if an airliner didn't hit the Pentagon, what DID happen there, and where is the missing airliner and its passengers?"

 

The answer I got was "I don't know and I don't care. All I know is that the government story is a pack of lies."

 

At that point, I decided that there was little value in continuing the discussion.

Not expecting any sort of helpful answer to be honest, I'm sure I'll get told that "my mask is slipping" or something in the next few days.

[niblick1874]

There are several explanations on the internet as to why there was still molten metal under the collapsed buildings and all of them are more plausible than the buildings were destroyed by explosive charges.

 

This is not a court room where you are trying to discredit someone's account, this is a discussion. So just tell me please what your theory is, its surely not that difficult.

It is not why the molten metal was STILL there, it is why it was there, underneath building seven, in the first place. You say there are several explanations on the internet why there was molten metal under the buildingS, I am not asking for explanations for the buildingS, I am asking for one explanation for the molten metal under building seven. Show me one, just one, that does not include nanothermite, as in explosions that we see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. Go 

Edited March 4, 2016 by niblick1874

[niblick1874]

No.

 

You tell me your whole theory, frankly nobidy gives a **** why there is molten metal under building 7, people do care about how and why a conspiracy took place.

So nanothermite it is then. Therefor a false flag..

Edited March 4, 2016 by niblick1874

[maroonlegions]

Cant stand the woman myself but what a strange commitment to make, desperate for votes.

 

It's no secret that former Whitehouse chief of staff to former president Bill Clinton Podesta has previously gone on the record as saying him firmly beliefs that there is substance to the UFO enigma and that he favours the declassification of  those documents held by the national security law that are not bound to by law to ever be released through the FOA acts.

 

Anyone who has studied or looked deeper  at this subject and somewhat looked  beyond to  what is available through the media that is ,can appreciate the longevity of this claim if it is  upheld if she wins office in the big whitehoose.     

 

 

"Several U.S. presidents are on the record, talking about the UFO mystery. Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan say they had UFO sightings of their own, but the current presidential campaign might be the first in which UFO disclosure has been championed by a major party candidate.

 

"During a recent campaign stop in Las Vegas, the campaign manager for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told Politics NOW co-host Steve Sebelius that Clinton will try to get to the bottom of the UFO question".

 

"John Podesta has always been a strong advocate for declassification of government files in general and UFO files in particular".

?I think the American people can handle the truth about this,? he said.

 

As White House Chief of Staff for former President Bill Clinton, Podesta helped declassify hundreds of millions of documents. If there were UFO secrets being held somewhere, however, they eluded even the president.

 

Podesta returned to the White House as a special advisor to President Barack Obama. On the day he left the job, he sent out a Tweet saying his biggest disappointment was the failure to find and uncover the UFO files.

 

These days, Podesta has the ear of another potential president; he's running the campaign for Hillary Clinton. He made it clear to Sebelius that the UFO question has been discussed.

 

?I've talked to Hillary about that. It's a little bit of a cause of mine, which is, people really want to know what the government knows, and there are still classified files that could be declassified,? he said.

 

It wasn't an offhand remark. Podesta has encouraged journalists to ask his candidate about UFOs, and a few have done so. Mrs. Clinton told a New Hampshire newspaper that she intends to get to the bottom of the UFO mystery, thinks it is possible the planet may have been visited and would consider creating a task force to investigate Nevada's Area 51 military base. The base became a center of UFO attention more than 25 years ago because of reports that aired on KLAS-TV.

 

CNN characterized Mrs. Clinton's remarks as jokes.

But Podesta said he and Hillary were serious about it.

 

link; http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/i-team-clinton-aide-seeks-ufo-files

Edited March 4, 2016 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

So

 

So Trump is going to give the truth about 9/11.

 

Hillary"s going to give the truth about UFOs.....  decisions, decisions America eh...  

 

 

 

 

"I can survive in the rat race early, time is money and money is honey,honey".....

Edited March 4, 2016 by maroonlegions

[Cigaro]

Funny how ML turns up with his fingers in his ears when his wee pal is getting a hard time.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[niblick1874]

Funny how ML turns up with his fingers in his ears when his wee pal is getting a hard time.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Ha Ha. Fingers in ears?  Building seven, molten metal, nanothermite. Nothing to say on the subject? Thought not. I wonder why. 

[maroonlegions]

Funny how ML turns up with his fingers in his ears when his wee pal is getting a hard time.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

Funny how you can get away with calling someone a fecking moron, funny how you have decided that he is my pal to.

 

In fact i think you are fecking hilarious , he can fight his own battles  in his own way.. he is big enough.

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe i do not want to engage in any rebuttals or conversations with those that i find, rude, wisecracks, keyboard hard men  and down right nasty fecking now alls.

 

I do not give a feck about whether  you think the 9/11 was  NOT committed by terrorists mate, i  find it difficult to accept some of the official explanations, is that plain enough for you.. too many contradictions , as i have said the truth will have no need to explain itself over and over again. The first explanation and its reject is my nemesis.

 

How would you fare in a room full  of those who  lost loved ones on that sad day and who do not ecept the officual  bukllshoite story, would you be so cocky and call them fecking morons too??

 

Dont try and pan it  off  that the official story is the only one with credibility, witnesses  and credible  building and construction  professionals, the rejection  argument  side of the official story has its share too and it is fir that fact alone that i am highly suspicious of  some official events and explanations.

 

 

There are plenty of credible  professionals who do not  accept the official explanations too mate, those that have looked at most the official version of events on that day. When will that fact start worrying you, when will the penny drop that the very first official explanation that came from the US authorities was full of contradictions and eventually rejected, they had to revise it , now since when does a true story or truth  fail so miserably in its first public outing, only lies and deceit need re runs/

 

Any comments on the UFO situation, any comments  on that articule i just posted, in fact any comments  that do not contain derogatory remarks of the  character of the person you are replying to??

 

There have been plenty of fingers in ears regarding the hard to explain  UFO cases and those cases that are hard to  take the pesh out of mate.

 

If i choose to accept that 9/11 was possibly an inside job or that i find some of it not adding up and then follow the natural progression of  taking  sides with those professionals that reject the official 9/11 "alice in wonderland story" then that's my choice.

 

Thing is when name calling becomes the norm then it's a sure  sign that person is getting bugged and has  real issues with the opposite of his/hers opinions, either way i dont give a feck, my mind was made up well before a  thread appeared on a football forum.   

 

You could do well to learn some manners and show some decorum and respect when replying and  berating  those that do  accept the official version of 9/11.  

Edited March 4, 2016 by maroonlegions

[Cigaro]

Ha Ha. Fingers in ears? Building seven, molten metal, nanothermite. Nothing to say on the subject? Thought not. I wonder why.

You've been asked a number of questions, a number of times, by a number of posters. These have been asked in a civilised manner and you point blank refuse to answer them. You either come out with condescending nonsense or simply disappear. Why would you expect anyone else to entertain your questions and theories?

 

Many people have discussed your molten metal stuff, countering your claims. You've ignored their replies and requests for further information on your arguments. I wonder why...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[maroonlegions]

On the Podesta revelations regarding Hillary Clinton's UFO comments.  UFO secrets have possibly been controlled and manipulated by conservatives and republicans for decades. Recent history proves  that past democrat party presidents have always been denied any authority or material substance to disclose even when they lobbied heavily for classified UFO files.

 

This hole goes deep and  further than the peshing taking media    will ever admit.

 

For me personally there is not a fecking chance that Hillary could or would be fully trusted with  being fully briefed by the "gatekeepers",   who more than likely are  members of the infamous "skull and bones"  and other secret orders with oaths never to reveal anything of real substance.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

[Cigaro]

Funny how you can get away with calling someone a fecking moron, funny how you have decided that he is my pal to.

 

In fact i think you are fecking hilarious , he can fight his own battles in his own way.. he is big enough.

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe i do not want to engage in any rebuttals or conversations with those that i find, rude, wisecracks, keyboard hard men and down right nasty fecking now alls.

 

I do not give a feck about whether you think the 9/11 was NOT committed by terrorists mate, i find it difficult to accept some of the official explanations, is that plain enough for you.. too many contradictions , as i have said the truth will have no need to explain itself over and over again. The first explanation and its reject is my nemesis.

 

How would you fare in a room full of those who lost loved ones on that sad day and who do not ecept the officual bukllshoite story, would you be so cocky and call them fecking morons too??

 

Dont try and pan it off that the official story is the only one with credibility, witnesses and credible building and construction professionals, the rejection argument side of the official story has its share too and it is fir that fact alone that i am highly suspicious of some official events and explanations.

 

 

There are plenty of credible professionals who do not accept the official explanations too mate, those that have looked at most the official version of events on that day. When will that fact start worrying you, when will the penny drop that the very first official explanation that came from the US authorities was full of contradictions and eventually rejected, they had to revise it , now since when does a true story or truth fail so miserably in its first public outing, only lies and deceit need re runs/

 

Any comments on the UFO situation, any comments on that articule i just posted, in fact any comments that do not contain derogatory remarks of the character of the person you are replying to??

 

There have been plenty of fingers in ears regarding the hard to explain UFO cases and those cases that are hard to take the pesh out of mate.

 

If i choose to accept that 9/11 was possibly an inside job or that i find some of it not adding up and then follow the natural progression of taking sides with those professionals that reject the official 9/11 "alice in wonderland story" then that's my choice.

 

Thing is when name calling becomes the norm then it's a sure sign that person is getting bugged and has real issues with the opposite of his/hers opinions, either way i dont give a feck, my mind was made up well before a thread appeared on a football forum.

 

You could do well to learn some manners and show some decorum and respect when replying and berating those that do accept the official version of 9/11.

Great post m8.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Cigaro]

On the Podesta revelations regarding Hillary Clinton's UFO comments. UFO secrets have possibly been controlled and manipulated by conservatives and republicans for decades. Recent history proves that past democrat party presidents have always been denied any authority or material substance to disclose even when they lobbied heavily for classified UFO files.

 

This hole goes deep and further than the peshing taking media will ever admit.

 

For me personally there is not a fecking chance that Hillary could or would be fully trusted with being fully briefed by the "gatekeepers", who more than likely are members of the infamous "skull and bones" and other secret orders with oaths never to reveal anything of real substance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Riddley Walker]

Funny how you can get away with calling someone a fecking moron, funny how you have decided that he is my pal to.

 

In fact i think you are fecking hilarious , he can fight his own battles in his own way.. he is big enough.

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe i do not want to engage in any rebuttals or conversations with those that i find, rude, wisecracks, keyboard hard men and down right nasty fecking now alls.

 

I do not give a feck about whether you think the 9/11 was NOT committed by terrorists mate, i find it difficult to accept some of the official explanations, is that plain enough for you.. too many contradictions , as i have said the truth will have no need to explain itself over and over again. The first explanation and its reject is my nemesis.

 

How would you fare in a room full of those who lost loved ones on that sad day and who do not ecept the officual bukllshoite story, would you be so cocky and call them fecking morons too??

 

Dont try and pan it off that the official story is the only one with credibility, witnesses and credible building and construction professionals, the rejection argument side of the official story has its share too and it is fir that fact alone that i am highly suspicious of some official events and explanations.

 

 

There are plenty of credible professionals who do not accept the official explanations too mate, those that have looked at most the official version of events on that day. When will that fact start worrying you, when will the penny drop that the very first official explanation that came from the US authorities was full of contradictions and eventually rejected, they had to revise it , now since when does a true story or truth fail so miserably in its first public outing, only lies and deceit need re runs/

 

Any comments on the UFO situation, any comments on that articule i just posted, in fact any comments that do not contain derogatory remarks of the character of the person you are replying to??

 

There have been plenty of fingers in ears regarding the hard to explain UFO cases and those cases that are hard to take the pesh out of mate.

 

If i choose to accept that 9/11 was possibly an inside job or that i find some of it not adding up and then follow the natural progression of taking sides with those professionals that reject the official 9/11 "alice in wonderland story" then that's my choice.

 

Thing is when name calling becomes the norm then it's a sure sign that person is getting bugged and has real issues with the opposite of his/hers opinions, either way i dont give a feck, my mind was made up well before a thread appeared on a football forum.

 

You could do well to learn some manners and show some decorum and respect when replying and berating those that do accept the official version of 9/11.

We all know your views on this, but you've posted a novella of spraff on this topic without providing any evidence, or anything resembling that.

 

If that's all it takes to convince you of something then fair enough, but most of want a bit more.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Riddley Walker

[Riddley Walker]

Ha Ha. Fingers in ears? Building seven, molten metal, nanothermite. Nothing to say on the subject? Thought not. I wonder why.

You're just saying words that mean nothing. Any evidence to your claims?

 

Any website links that aren't for dumb people? A wee summary in your own words? Or are you just going to repeat buzzwords you've heard off your pals?

[maroonlegions]

You've been asked a number of questions, a number of times, by a number of posters. These have been asked in a civilised manner and you point blank refuse to answer them. You either come out with condescending nonsense or simply disappear. Why would you expect anyone else to entertain your questions and theories?

 

Many people have discussed your molten metal stuff, countering your claims. You've ignored their replies and requests for further information on your arguments. I wonder why...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

 

Have visited the 9/11 truth website?? why would professionals on there  voice real concerns with the official story. ??

 

Why would they risk their reputations with something so big,?? why would they risk their careers??

 

There are to many "WHYS".

 

Can you answer the above "why"s" ??

 

 

 

Why not ask them on the 9/11 truth website  your questions and demands??

 

9/11 is by no means a black and white argument , to even present the argument  that one set of credible professionals who are for the official story, and who are to be favoured ,over those professionals who outright reject the official story is not the  real discrepancy with 9/11, the discrepancy i find  is that there are those just as credible professionally   witnesses  too who reject the official story.

 

That fact alone throws up  serious complications , again i will ask the question , why is there rejection and serious doubts manifesting   from those in the  credibility ranks who reject the official story??

 

If  the 9/11 official explanations  was as straightforward  as the official story presents then why the numbers of those rejecting  it in the credibility ranks of witnesses and professionals??