Did u know :-
BBC reported live that Building 7 has collapse when it was shown fully standing behind her left shoulder ! And it was another 30mins before it collapsed.
But hey, im sure you can make excuses for bbc ;) lol
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html
Ps. Dont forget Larry Silverstein say that he had to "Pull the Building"
But hey, im sure you can make excuses for bbc ;) lol
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html
Ps. Dont forget Larry Silverstein say that he had to "Pull the Building"
Post edited by Cornishdavey:)) on
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Again though IF the US were behind it then surely Osama/every other nutter would be telling TV stations/journalists out there, no way could the US/UK block every single transmission. If Osama wanted to tell the world that the US was behind 9/11 and not himself he would 100% give out a tape to a TV station. The only people who believe this are the nuts in the US/UK
best performance of thiers imo. :p
lesley grantham shot that german taxi driver.
also uri geller supposedly shot some one while serving with the israely army.
what other killer celebs are out there?
That reminds me, I have to get a new shed to put my felts on.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
plus I left my shed open but I can't be arsed to go out and fix it in the rain
They only orchestrated an attack on the twin sheds of the World Shed Centre at the bottom of the garden. They hijacked my 2 year old's toy plastic tricycles and drove them into the sheds at high speed, destroying them in the process.
Over 20 gnomes perished, and now all hell's broken loose in the neighbourhood.
Oh yeah?
What good does it do that the world is absolutely full of provable information when nobody is listening, can you explain that to me?
There is basically nothing in the official story that CAN be proved to be true at all. On the contrary, it can be proven in a court of law if required that the official 9/11 story is a total fake.
The truth is that few people want to know the truth. They're afraid. Most people really only want to get on with their lives and keep any bad stuff from entering into it. This is perfectly natural and it's how we all operate. What you're displaying is what psychology calls Denial. This is not about people being nutters and trying to swing you into the mental institutions with them, it's you who forcefully experience denial, while the so-called nutters are in stage 2 of the process: Anger.
The key to understanding anything is to stop looking for who is responsible and instead look at what actually happened. Most people are stuck on this Osama-thing, or US government this and that and yada yada. You're missing the point. Look at the information available instead, and ask yourself why it is being suppressed and ridiculed. To keep to the topic, how come the BBC reported about this building collapsing before it actually happened? Can you give a rational explanation to this? It is obviously true and anyone can verify that, there's plenty of information on it out there.
Pick one piece of the puzzle at a time, look at it objectively and do your research. In a short space of time you'll begin to see that something isn't right. That is, if you decide that you wish to care about what is going on in this world. As I said earlier, most people just don't want to know and are actively looking for excuses to ignore the truth. This is why we've been stomped on throughout all of history; the people choose to ignore the bad stuff as long as it doesn't affect them on a personal level.
Ask yourself: who benefits from 9/11? Did the muslims benefit? Sure, they made sure the entire world turned against them and collectively signed their own death warrants. That makes sense, that's what anybody would want, eh? Nonsense. The only people who would benefit from such a catastrophy would be the ones who would want to impose the strict laws that are now in effect in most of the western world, and who benefits financially because of them. Follow the money lads, don't deceive yourselves.
It's up to you. :)
The statement suggests anything decided in a court of law is fact....courts are often wrong in their decisions. Also its impossible to prove anything, including your existence. Most rational people work on the assumption that proof BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT is the way to go, it usually works.
Prove it :D
Sure...listen carefully now...they made a mistake. Thats a perfectly rational explanation. I hate to burst your bubble but I doubt very much the BBC (or any media organization) are privy to any SECRET information regarding 9/11. It would be pretty stupid to say...'hey! I know lets call the BBC up and let them in on it, they can keep a secret!'
First I guarantee you as a US taxpayer the US is NOT in any way shape or form benefiting financially or any other way from it. Financially gas/petrol has been double what it was 5 yrs ago, taxes are higher, and the threat level is also higher than ever, check the US budget for the Iraq operations for the next 2 years..150 billion or something like that.....Im dont see any benifits AT ALL!!!.
Also as far as the official story not being quite true...of course its not!!! It would be very very foolish for any country to divulge secret information about such an attack. Too put it on a smaller scale here is an example: Whenever the police are searching for a murderer/crime suspect they do not reveal all the information they have to the public as it may prove useful in the future once the criminal is caught etc.....its called COMMON SENSE.
Exactly Take Derek Bentley, the last man in England to hang for a crime he didn't commit. He was pardoned years too late, but it's no good pardoning a dead man. His family must have been ecstatic.
Of course, I know that. I used that expression because it's what most people equate with proving something to be true. I'm glad you don't. :) Beyond reasonable doubt rings fine with me!
LOL! That's a good one.. :D
Fine, perhaps they made a mistake. That's not the point. This case doesn't rest on one piece of information, there's thousands of bits in the puzzle. In isolation some of them can be called a coincidence, but when put together it starts to smell bad.
One thing makes me puzzled though: if you believe that this BBC thing was a mistake, well, what gives? Where did they get this information from? Did they just make it up and if so, why? There were no other fallen buildings at that time they could have mixed it up with, so that is ruled out.
Building 7 is quite a mystery in fact. The official version is that it imploded naturally due to the extensive damage it got. Yet, look at any TV footage and it's barely damaged at all. And of course the owner of WTC said on national TV that they decided to demolish the building themselves because it was so damaged . So, we know for a fact that Building 7 was pulled down with explosives. Of course, just looking at it collapsing gives that away. Same thing with the towers, but of course nobody wants to admit to that. This is well worth looking into if you're a sceptic. :)
So, to recap: all buildings were brought down by explosives, and this can for sure be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Don't argue with me about it though, find the information for yourself. I'm happy to help if anybody's interested.
Who said the people is going to benefit from it? I sure didn't. The people are "useless eaters", nobody in power cares about them. The 150 billion you mention for example, who is on the receiving end of that..? Follow that lead. :)
Interesting. So you readily admit that the 9/11 commission produced a lie, that your own government lies to you because it's good for you..? ;) Self deception is fun, I admit.
It's not even quite true, there is no truth in it at all. The only thing we can agree on is that there was damage caused, but the rest is speculative at best.
Comparing with murder cases et al isn't too relevant I think. Here we have a big commission with the sole purpose of providing the public with the complete rundown of what actually happened. Their one function was to provide the truth on 9/11, and they gave you none of it. I fail to see how this could be called common sense. :)
In any case, arguing with me isn't too creative. I'm only replying here because I'm tired of these threads and the collective ridicule of Cornishdavey.
Go out there and find the information for yourself; it's all in the public domain and easy to find. Sure, there is a lot of bullshit too, but given time you'll weed that out without too much trouble. Check out the works by Webster Tarpley for example, he's got some excellent info and that's a good place to start.
Well we're tired of these threads too, which is why no one cares a rat's arse for any of this.
Can we talk about sheds now? Which colour is yours?
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
That is what CERTAIN people have to understand, one persons truth is another persons insanity, just like one persons insanity is another persons truth. It works both ways. But when someone strays to make things awkwardly ridiculous, when it's unnecessary, irrelevant, and down right spasticated, then somebody is going to protest, simple as (maybe as simple as the person who thinks the world will explode if they turn the light off at 8pm). Fuck it bollocks, I'm done trying to be reasonible shove it up your arse. Stop posting crap that nobody cares about you fucking retard, go drink cider out of a lemon and rape your sister you cornish tosswad nob head inbred cow fucker.
He got me to type a heated answer again!!!
in the event of two of the worlds largest buildings collapsing (how the were designed to collapse, rather than Fred Dibnah style which people seem to have expected) and thousands of people dieing a bit of mis communication about a collapsing building leads to the Government did it
fantastic
I'm new here, but I've learned a lot from reading the old threads.
Mine has more than one colour. And it sheds!
Just watching Season 4 now. Don't tell me how it ends.
ive never seen it, im not that old.