reply to post by Varemia
If you're not making any claims then you don't need to post any evidence.
If you ever make a specific claim again in this thread then I'll just ask you to post evidence.
That's how forums work.
Look back on my posts and I post links to specific evidence all the time.
That's why the Official Story is bunk because it lacks the evidence.
Maybe you don't want to talk about WTC7 since it so obviously was a controlled demolition.
Once that is acknowledged then it's also obvious that WTC 1 and 2 were also controlled demolitions.
According to the OS -- a brand new type of "progressive collapse" by fire was discovered by WTC 7 -- but WTC 1 and 2 were also brand new types of
collapses yet "different" than WTC 7. What an amazing day of "discovery" for science! haha.
Now let's also not talk about the actual hijackers being CIA spies - as Daniel Hopsicker has demonstrated -- our Arab double agents -- with U.S.
military connections and CIA protection -- as Sander Hicks has demonstrated.
Nope - that's also not on topic. haha.
Have you watched the Daniel Hopsicker documentary -- care to comment on that? Mohammed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus.
Have you read Sander Hick's book The Big Wedding.
I have debunked the NIST report here but apparently I've still not given the correct answer that is the secret evidence proving 9/11 was not a
If you have this secret evidence -- please provide it -- because the other person just repeats how this Column 79 somehow spread the interior column
collapse instanteously for 6 seconds and then the exterior columns were pulled down.
It's strange that WTC7 collapses from the bottom first in free fall speed and so the above scenario doesn't match that at all.
So we have this secret imaginary computer animation scenario and all you can do is refer to whole websites without any specific evidence to explain
how this was possible.
I've already pointed out David Griffin exposing NIST lying about the cause of column 79 failing and how Alienscientist has exposed NIST lying about
the extent of fires on floors 11 to 13. I've already pointed out research proving that the NIST animations - all of them - are inaccurate.
That's all specific evidence I provided with links and specific "exterior quotes". Now provide specific evidence that it's not true. Instead you
just give links to whole websites. haha. That's not specific evidence.
You refer to the person who was with Bryan Jennings - can you prove this person is not now tied to Guiliani?
Is that what your website that you link to does prove? If so give a quote or specific evidence. Because obviously if Bryan Jennings died by foul play
and the person with him then works with Guiliani -- then his credibility as a witness no longer holds.
I'll give you an example - there's this new documentary Bananas about Dole pesticide use killing workers in Honduras. So the workers were made
sterile and died from cancer, etc. but then their testimony was considered fraud because Dole got a new law firm to find other workers in Honduras
saying that the original witnesses were lying. The documentary was then censored in the U.S. and the filmmakers were sued, etc. Well it turns out
that these new Honduras workers claiming the first witnesses were lying actually had already made a deal with Dole to take a direct payment from Dole
if they kept quiet about the pesticide damage. So their witness credibility has already been disproven.
edit on 26-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong
because: (no reason given)