Truther Movement Can't Be Stopped

I saw the Popular Mechanics Vs Loose Change debate on Democracy Now. The guys from PM made Dylan Avery appear smart.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You're not making much sense. You don't think that if "they" blew up building seven and covered it up then they're guilty of a criminal act - or at least one that is highly immoral?

Nothing criminal about bringing down a building. In fact a fire commander has the authority to bring down a buidling in a emergency.

Why not, once again, just let the building fall down?

Becasue they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings or causing more damage if it collapsed on its own to the side that was damaged.

Originally posted by mikelee
There remains probable cause to indict and charge top officials, George W. Bush himself, for the crimes we call '911'. And, last time I checked, there was no 'statute of limitation' on mass murder, war crimes [see: US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441] or high treason!

200 years ago they'd have hung the bastard! In many ways we have lost the idea of what 'justice' means..

Changed my mind, I didn't like what I wrote.

Sorry about that. Anyway, I'm all for the truth coming out! Search 9/11 Truth Movement on Facebook and join in! Social networking can't be beat. xD

[edit on 5-3-2010 by tru_blu_dude]

Originally posted by REMISNE


Nothing criminal about bringing down a building. In fact a fire commander has the authority to bring down a buidling in a emergency.

Then why haven't they admitted it? What's the point in covering it up?

Becasue they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings or causing more damage if it collapsed on its own to the side that was damaged.

You've taken my question out of context. I mean why inform the media if you want what you've done to remain covered up?

Anyone is welcome to answer the above question. Nobody has tried.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Here's a poster on the "12 New England towns..." thread.

Whomever investigates, I hope that Dr. Judy Wood has some input. She discounts thermite, although not thermate, and considers a Direct Energy Weapon.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Then why haven't they admitted it? What's the point in covering it up?

Why are you asking me for? Try to do your own search for the truth.

I mean why inform the media if you want what you've done to remain covered up?

Who said they did inform the media? Maybe it was there own idea to talk about the building?



[edit on 5-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Here's a poster on the "12 New England towns..." thread.

Whomever investigates, I hope that Dr. Judy Wood has some input. She discounts thermite, although not thermate, and considers a Direct Energy Weapon.

Wow! 1 poster out of how many???????? Let me say this again, for the 10th time. I know there are a few people like this. A few! That was my point. People keep bringing them up to discredit the entire truther movement when they actually make up such a small percentage that the accusations do not even remotely correlate to the truth of the matter. Make me say it an 11th time, please.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


You didn't say that. You wrote that nobody thought these things. You asked to be shown them, implying that it would be impossible since they don't exist. Then you changed your mind and suggested only one person - Judy Wood - holds these opinions.

Now that I've demonstrated that they form an intrinsic, vocal part of the TM and that many on ATS think that their conclusions are worthwhile you're backtracking.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Then why haven't they admitted it? What's the point in covering it up?

Why are you asking me for? Try to do your own search for the truth.

I mean why inform the media if you want what you've done to remain covered up?

Who said they did inform the media? Maybe it was there own idea to talk about the building?



[edit on 5-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Okay, I just don't understand you any more.

Are you saying that the media reporting of 7's collapse is suspicious or not?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Are you saying that the media reporting of 7's collapse is suspicious or not?

YEs, it is suspicious but it does not mean the media was informed by anyone at the scene.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Are you saying that the media reporting of 7's collapse is suspicious or not?

YEs, it is suspicious but it does not mean the media was informed by anyone at the scene.

So how do you think they found out about its imminent collapse? And why is it suspicious?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So how do you think they found out about its imminent collapse? And why is it suspicious?

They could have picked up on what was being said at the scene, they did not need to be informed.

It is suspicious because of the timing.



[edit on 8-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE


They could have picked up on what was being said at the scene, they did not need to be informed.

Okay. So the people who rigged the building were talking about it at the scene?

It is suspicious because of the timing.

People keep saying that. I'm asking you to explain why. Because to me it makes it less suspicious, given that if you had rigged the building to explode you would not be transmitting that fact to the media.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay. So the people who rigged the building were talking about it at the scene?

You have the video of the workers comming out of the safety zone stating that the building is comming down.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay. So the people who rigged the building were talking about it at the scene?

You have the video of the workers comming out of the safety zone stating that the building is comming down.

And this happened hours before the collapse?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And this happened hours before the collapse?

Well if you look at the timeline that the firefighters were evacuated from the safety zone about 3 hours before the building was brought down, (which also raises the question what were the workers doing inside the safety zone).

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And this happened hours before the collapse?

Well if you look at the timeline that the firefighters were evacuated from the safety zone about 3 hours before the building was brought down, (which also raises the question what were the workers doing inside the safety zone).

What workers? I'm not aware of the video you mention and I'm not sure how relevant it is anyway. Indeed I have to say I'm not sure where this discussion is headed or what you are driving at.