See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Ex-CIA: 911 Almost Certainly A 'Monstrous Series Of Lies'
Source:
Rense
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 1, 2007
Author: Paul Chen
Post Date: 2007-04-05 11:26:02 by WTC7 911Smoking Cannon
Keywords: None
Views: 855
Comments: 70
David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement. This is by virtue of his previous four books on the subject. Professor Griffin and a growing list of scholars, other researchers as well as diverse experts and activists, reject the official Islamist mastermind conspiracy theory about 9/11 advanced by Establishment interests. Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. government and the Big Business controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In David Ray Griffin's new book entitled Debunking 9/11, shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. "Debunking 9/11 is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods," says Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA. Mr. Christison further indicates that, "This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen." Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Professor Griffin critically challenges recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine. Professor Griffin also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications -- which one might have expected to be supportive. Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly levelled against critics of the official theory -- that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith -- actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory. "Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed," says Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States. "Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics," says Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan administration. "David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called 'the official story of 9/11/01,' which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans," further indicates Meria Heller, Producer Host of the Meria Heller Show (<http://www.meria.net).>http://www.meria.net>http://www.meria.net). This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim -- that 9/11 was an inside job -- remains the only explanation that fits the facts. David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies. His 30 books include The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), 9/11 and American Empire (2006, ed. with Peter Dale Scott), and Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 (2006)
Poster Comment: Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." Hey, BeAChooser, suck on that.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: christine, robin, ALL (#16)
Are you aware, christine, that virtually the exact same statements as in this thread's article were posted in one of the articles that robin linked and complained about me responding to with my post? This one: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47593&Disp=0#C0 . That thread starts off as follows: "By virtue of his previous four books on the subject, David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11." Notice the similarity to the way the current thread's article starts: "David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement. This is by virtue of his previous four books on the subject." The current thread article goes on to say: "Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon. It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. government and the Big Business controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In David Ray Griffin's new book entitled Debunking 9/11, shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked." The thread robin linked says almost the same thing: "Although this movement was long ignored by the US government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon. It is not surprising, therefore, that the government and the corporately controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked." A little later, the current thread's article says: "Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Professor Griffin critically challenges recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine." Guess what? The thread robin linked and complained about says almost the same thing, word for word: "Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of Debunking 9/11 Myths (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Griffin riddles recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine." And the similarity continues. BOTH articles say this, word for word: "Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly levelled against critics of the official theory -- that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith -- actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory." Now many would call that plagerism. Do you condone plagerism on your forum, christine? I'll simply call it the same article ... in which case I see no cause for you to complain about me reposting my response whenever this same article is posted at 4um. And by the way, you may not have noticed but these two threads that robin linked and complained about http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47233&Disp=16#C16 http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47885&Disp=1#C1 are the same article. Doesn't this forum have a policy about reposting the same article over and over? Isn't that equivalent to spamming the forum? Apparently that's ok as long as the article agrees with *the party line*.
Then name one.
Oh wow, are you gonna dump him? Hurray! (And yes, BAC when it comes to the cheering you hear I'm pretty typical of the posters here at 4! ;) ) HAH!
"Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters."__Harry J. Anslinger "Actually Harry, my brain is more like Alice beyond the looking glass...."__HD
I've read Griffin's books and find them thoroughly persuasive. If Christison praises Griffin's work, that makes me trust Christison. It certainly doesn't diminish my regard for Griffin's work -- which I have read myself.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
That is a bit over the top, as you and I cannot know what every specialist thinks on the matter. That said, I, generally, apppreciate your contributions here, to irritate and question the opionions held. I would love to believe my government regarding the 9-11 attacks, and believe them in all else as well. Very unfortunately, they have been demonstrated to be decievers of the first rate over the years, as most honest observers might acknowledge. So when a terrific event comes along that is most useful for implementing the zionists often stated plans (PNAC and others ad nausum), it is healthy for some questions to be asked and for alot of skepticism to be revealed. Gosh BAC - We have been lied to soooooooooooo many times and I am tired of being a sucker for the DC elite group. I imagine you are as well. I like the idea of a counter argument being presented here. There is alot of hucksterism surround the events, as is to be expected. And it needs to be discussed. As you may note I am not on top of all the details of every argument, I don't know who could be. But the USG has, to my mind, been far less than forthcomming on the matters questioned here. Plenty of videos could have been released - and they have not been. Just like the OKC bombing videos are confiscated by the FBI and are not even admitted to the trials of the accused. So the crazies and KOOKS of the Muslims extreamists need to be taken care of, but I feel, we have embedded in our shadow government, there are as well radical extreamists happy for the power and influence they have obtained with out the will, much less the knowledge of the citizens that are accountable for the actions done in their name.
false comparison. different thread titles posted by different posters. we have a lot of duplicate posts that the search engine doesn't find. that similar info exists in different articles is absurd for you to try and use. that doesn't compare to your reposting of the same very long posts over and over and no one else posted that their purpose is to spam as you did. the rules FOR YOU still stand.
Here's a Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko of Jowenko.nl, a major Dutch demolitions firm, who says WTC 7 could not have been brought down by fire. For more info, check out the story at 9-11 Blogger.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
If chooser can't spam, change the subject or insult people, then what is he supposed to do when somebody posts a true fact that he disagrees with? He doesn't seem to have any other tricks in his book.
.
Tom, what's up with the twisting cube and that disturbing pic of Jackson and Spears? Are you trying to trigger some MKUltra-programmed assassin lurking on 4?
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
You're like the energizer bunny of liars, you keep lying and lying and lying...
in the future, use links to your copy and paste repeat spam posts.
i'm tired of you demeaning this forum and all the members. stop it. you post links and quit the repeat spamming, BAC. those are the rules for you. abide by them or your evil ass gets dumped.
#21. To: Arator, ALL (#17)
And that is empty hyperbole. Every one in the world, eh BAC? Every single one without exception. That's false on its face.
#22. To: christine (#16)
#23. To: Destro (#9)
#24. To: Arator, BeAChooser, christine, zipporah (#17)
(Edited)
That's every structural engineer; demolition expert; structural materials expert, expert in buckling or fire, expert in seismology, and macro- world physicist IN THE WORLD.
#25. To: BeAChooser (#20)
#26. To: BeAChooser (#21)
Then name one.
#27. To: christine (#25)
#28. To: tom007 (#24)
(Edited)
#29. To: BeAChooser (#13)
That's every structural engineer; demolition expert;
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#30. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#16)
HOORAY FOR CHRISTINE Hooray for Christine, she put BAC down Christine's been friends with many a guy Christine knows both pity and shame Christine only does things that she wants to do Hooray for Christine, there's joy in her eyes you post links and quit the repeat spamming, BAC. those are the rules for you. abide by them or your evil ass gets dumped.
Hooray for Christine, she made BAC a clown
Hooray for Christine, she's got her tricks
Hooray for Christine, she's gettin' her kicks
She takes no crap; she just says goodbye
Hooray for Christine, BACs now on her list
He’s just a fool who shouldn't persist
She allows no jerks to play in her game
Hooray for Christine, she did it again
BAC’s gonna soon join the ranks of low fame
Never selfish or spoiled; but knows that she's cute
Hooray for Christine, she always gets things her way
But there's a time a-comin' we'll be able to say
Hooray for Christine, she made BAC cry
Hooray for Christine, she's always a love
Hooray for Christine, she does well as a dove
Hooray for Christine, there a smile in her eyes
Hooray for Christine, she made BAC cry
#31. To: Critter (#29)
It must be SO frustrating for the promoters of the big lies about 9/11 to realize that after years and years of government lies about everything from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to the Kennedy assassinations to.... well, heck, just about everything.. that finally we've reached a point where a majority of people no longer believe what the government says any longer. Looks like the little boy cried "wolf" one too many times.. and now nobody believes him any longer. Darn shame, isn't it? Must be ever so frustrating to be one of them now. I can almost feel sorry for them... almost...
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#32. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#21)
Common sense doesn't require a license - in case you missed that class. If a spaced-out crack whore gets an escaping license number correctly, subsequently discovered corroborating evidence makes her a hero. That's the real world, BAC; not the stuff of your disinformation and psyops attempts. Go away, BAC! Far away - and soon! Then name one.
#33. To: WTC7 911Smoking Cannon (#0)
BEALOOSER AND DESTRO will both refute this spook [how "expert" does one have to be to top a CIA agent???] because he doesn't "work for the steel industry." BWAHAHA!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
"Peace? There's no money in peace! What we need is a war!"
--Three Stooges
#34. To: SKYDRIFTER (#30)
love it! :P
#35. To: IndieTX, WTC7 911Smoking Cannon (#33)
If he is not a spook anymore then how does he know what's up? CIA still speaks to him? I assume to be an expert you must practice your craft. Let me know when you hayseeds can think using logic.
BEALOOSER AND DESTRO will both refute this spook
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#36. To: Arator (#11)
Shills like BAC and Destro repeat this same line over and over and over. Who is feeding them this crap and how much are they getting? Talking points are rather obvious.
significantly weaken the fireproofing damaged steel
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
"Peace? There's no money in peace! What we need is a war!"
--Three Stooges
#37. To: aristeides, Destro, ALL (#23)
Christison had a 28-year CIA career when he retired in 1979. That's makes him about 73. Now let's see how good his reasoning still is ... From his article "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/140806_b_Belittling.htm): ONE: An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion; among other things, the hole in the Pentagon was considerably smaller than an airliner would create. The building was thus presumably hit by something smaller, possibly a missile, or a drone or, less possibly, a smaller manned aircraft. He is a LIAR. The images of the Pentagon (that he has to have seen) prove the hole in the Pentagon before the collapse was more than 90 feet across. And there was damage on the face of the structure where the rest of the plane would have hit. No missile, drone or smaller aircraft could have made that. Nor knocked down the light poles that were spaced more than 100 feet apart perpendicular to the trajectory. Nor damaged and moved the trailer in front of the Pentagon. The story put out by the Pentagon is that the plane and its passengers were incinerated; yet video footage of offices in the Pentagon situated at the edge of the hole clearly shows office furniture undamaged. This is FALSE. What was seen was office space exposed AFTER the structure collapsed along a construction joint. Exposing office space that was not subjected to the direct effects of the blast and fire. The size of the hole in the Pentagon wall still remains as valid evidence and so far seems irrefutable. LIAR. Folks, here is the hole this joker denies exists: This was to the left of where the fuselage hit: This was to the right of where the fuselage hit: Over 90 feet in width and the damage to the facade beyond that is consistent with where the wing tips would have struck. Those who don't think a plane hit the Pentagon should check this out: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only TWO: The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. ROTFLOL! Based on his expertise in structural engineering, demolition, impact, fire and steel? ROTFLOL! A substantial volume of evidence shows that typical residues and byproducts from such demolition charges were present in the three buildings after they collapsed. LIAR. The quality of the research done on this subject is quite impressive. Yeah ... research done by who? A physicist who spent the last 30 years working on sub-atomic particles and nothing else? And physicist who spent the last 30 years studying the micro structure of solar cells and nothing else? A mechnical engineer who specialized in dental materials (and who now says Professor Jones' research is wrong)? A structural engineer who worked in the oil industry for the last 30 years? An economist? A philosopher? A theologian? A janitor? A lawyer? What can one do but laugh? ROTFLOL! These first two points provide the strongest evidence available that the “official story” of 9/11 is not true. Then showing that the first two points are based on lies, distortions and foolishness must be the strongest evidence available that the "official story" of 9/11 is valid. It works both ways.
If Christison praises Griffin's work, that makes me trust Christison.
#38. To: christine, ALL (#25)
But they are still basically the same article. Clearly plagerized from one or the other. Are you saying that I can only respond to one and that the other gets a free ride here at 4um? And how about the case where the same article was posted twice ... even if by two different people? Is 4um's rule that I can only respond to one with a given set of text? That, unlike the article, I must be completely original if I respond to the other? Or am I at least allowed to plagerize my own post and need only rephrase it slightly in the second response? I just want to make sure that 4um's rule are CLEAR and APPLY TO ALL? Or do they, christine?
false comparison. different thread titles posted by different posters.
#39. To: BeAChooser (#37)
Is that all you have? Links from an agenda driven propaganda site like Little Green Footballs? Why don't you just post links to your magazine subscription sites instead? Thtat would be just as convincing.
.
#40. To: BeAChooser (#38)
i already told you. those rules are just for you.
#41. To: Arator, ALL (#26)
Actually, he did not say WTC could not be brought down by fire. And if you listen closely to what he actually did say, he does not think WTC 7 was a PRE-PLANNED demolition. His theory is that Silverstein decided AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers to demolish WTC 7 rather than try to repair it ... an insurance scam. And he came to that conclusion after seeing a video shown to him by a conspiracist (obviously not all the data available). Before reaching his conclusion, he wasn't told the building was involved in 9/11, wasn't told the building had been on fire for hours and hours, and wasn't told that firemen had said the structure was leaning and going to collapse well before it actually did. And by the way, he also said that the WTC towers were NOT controlled demolitions.
Here's a Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko of Jowenko.nl, a major Dutch demolitions firm, who says WTC 7 could not have been brought down by fire.
#42. To: BeAChooser (#38)
Quit being an ass. Stop posting your idiotic repetitive spam. You know what she means. Your attempt to muddy the waters is childish. Stop your goddamned whining and pouting and grow up.
Are you saying that I can only respond to one and that the other gets a free ride here at 4um?
.
#43. To: ..., ALL (#39)
You didn't bother looking at the video at that site, did you. ROTFLOL!
Links from an agenda driven propaganda site like Little Green Footballs?
#44. To: BeAChooser (#38)
Stop whining. Grow a pair and grow up loser.
Is 4um's rule that I can only respond to one with a given set of text?
.
#45. To: BeAChooser (#43) (Edited)
You didn't bother looking at the video at that site, did you. ROTFLOL! Ahhh. Choser changes the subject. Means I am correct in my allegation. The support for your bullshit comes from an agenda drive propaganda site. Thank for confirming this.
Links from an agenda driven propaganda site like Little Green Footballs?
.
#46. To: BeAChooser (#43)
Now go back to whining to Christine about your ridiculous victimhood little boy.
.
#47. To: christine, ALL (#40)
Could you clarify them for me? If a second thread has the same article as another thread that I've already responded to (or something basically plagerized from a first thread's article), can I repeat the comment I made in the first thread in the second thread? Yes or no? If not, can I modify it slightly (i.e., plagerize my post like the second article plagerized the first)? Yes or no? If not, must I be entirely original? Am I allowed to repeat any of the facts I listed in the first thread. Or must I come up with entirely new facts. How afraid of the inconvenient facts are you, christine?
i already told you. those rules are just for you.
#48. To: BeAChooser (#47)
No, you are not worth the effort.
Could you clarify them for me?
.
#49. To: BeAChooser (#47)
Yes.
f not, must I be entirely original?
.
#50. To: BeAChooser (#47)
No. Other people can do this, but you have abused the system with your spam. And that has consequences.
Am I allowed to repeat any of the facts I listed in the first thread.
.
#51. To: BeAChooser (#47)
No, because experience has shown that you will abuse the privilege.
If not, can I modify it slightly (i.e., plagerize my post like the second article plagerized the first)? Yes or no?
.
#52. To: BeAChooser (#47)
Now stop your fucking whining little boy and grow up.
.
#53. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#37)
You're the LIAR - BAC! Damage is one thing; but there is no tangible evidence that anything of high speed did the damage to the 9-11 Pentagon. As you led me into, yourself, the collapsed vertical sections would have been compressed into each other - they would not have been roughly parallel. You're the LIAR, BAC. He is a LIAR. The images of the Pentagon (that he has to have seen) prove the hole in the Pentagon before the collapse was more than 90 feet across. And there was damage on the face of the structure where the rest of the plane would have hit. No missile, drone or smaller aircraft could have made that. Nor knocked down the light poles that were spaced more than 100 feet apart perpendicular to the trajectory. Nor damaged and moved the trailer in front of the Pentagon.
#54. To: beachooser, Destro, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#47)
You have so many on this forum so totally disgusted, that those rules are uniquely yours, BAC. {Enjoy!} If you're not smart enough to keep from insulting Christine, BAC, you deserve to go back to ElPee & Goldi. How afraid of the inconvenient facts are you, christine?
#55. To: IndieTX, Arator (#36)
The steel industry. What hayseeds feed you your info?
Who is feeding them this crap and how much are they getting?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#56. To: BeAChooser, christine (#41) (Edited)
That is a f*cking lie. No demolitions expert would say that they decided and wired WTC 7 to implode in the chaotic hours after the destruction of Towers 1 and 2. They wouldn't say it because even non-demolition experts know that such a feat is impossible. WTC 7, if it were brought down with explosives (and it was), had to have been pre-wired to blow before 9-11, which means it was PRE- PLANNED. Jowenko did not say otherwise. Because of the shamelessness of your transparent lie about Jowenko, I now wash my hands of you, BAC. If chrissy wants to ban your sorry ass, I won't stand in her way. You have ZERO integrity, ZERO respect for truth and, therefore, ZERO value to this forum (or to this life in general, for that matter). Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. You are a lost soul, BAC. Adrift on an ocean of lies and black propaganda. And I don't think there's any hope of saving you. You may become the last Bushbot standing, the last one to fully buy into and peddle their shit. But no one here is buying it. And soon, only a marginalized leperous handful will, but they will be social outcasts and pariahs just like the last believers in and followers of the Hitler cult are today. Just as a monster like Hitler has his totally deluded accolytes who not only still believe but live out his lies even today, so Bush will always have you. And you deserve each other. Truly.
Actually, he did not say WTC could not be brought down by fire. And if you listen closely to what he actually did say, he does not think WTC 7 was a PRE-PLANNED demolition. His theory is that Silverstein decided AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers to demolish WTC 7 rather than try to repair it
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#57. To: Arator, Jethro Tull, scrapper2, ..., Minerva, Red Jones, Morgana Le Fay, AGAviator, SKYDRIFTER, robin, Destro, HOUNDDAWG, Zipporah, angle, Diana, bluedogtxn, IndieTx, Kamala, wbales, hammerdown, tom007 (#56) (Edited)
Ping to Arator's outstanding post.
#58. To: christine (#57)
bookmarked
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
#59. To: Arator (#28)
"To Kill a Mockingbird", page 66.
Tom, what's up with the twisting cube and that disturbing pic of Jackson and Spears? Are you trying to trigger some MKUltra-programmed assassin lurking on 4?
#60. To: Arator, BeAChooser, christine (#56)
No. When the Twin Towers fell they gauged out the side of WTC making the building list over and setting the thousands of gallons of diesel fuel in the storage tanks inside the building on fire. Several hours later the building collapsed. The conspiracy is in why the USA allowed in known terrorists (many of whom worked for the CIA overseas in Bosnia for example), allowed them to train and dvelop their plans in America unhindered and how they lost track of them - wink -wink - somehow to allow them to hijack 4 planes, etc.
. WTC 7, if it were brought down with explosives (and it was), had to have been pre-wired to blow before 9-11, which means it was PRE- PLANNED. Jowenko did not say otherwise.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
.
.
.
Comments (61 - 70) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest