Is It Snowing In Your Neck Of The Woods?
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Did 'the Toronto Hearings On 9/11' Change Your Opinion?
12 Answers
Are the questions they raised justification for an official investigation ?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sevenOP. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
When Japan carried out a false flag attack as an excuse to attack China in Manchuria (1938) all they did was blow up a bridge. Even they were not so dastardly as to kill 3000-odd of their own civilians.
When true imperialists want a territory, they just march straight in and take it. No need for false flag covert operations. Judging by the UN's feeble reaction to Putin's recent exploits, they would not have reacted to USA attacking Iraq in any case.
By the way, there has already been an official enquiry. Saudi Arabians did it because they wanted US airbases on their soil closed down, considering them to be colonialist interference in their part of the world. Being such close buddies with the west, the US/allies attacked Iraq, instead of them.
Not much to investigste, there.
When true imperialists want a territory, they just march straight in and take it. No need for false flag covert operations. Judging by the UN's feeble reaction to Putin's recent exploits, they would not have reacted to USA attacking Iraq in any case.
By the way, there has already been an official enquiry. Saudi Arabians did it because they wanted US airbases on their soil closed down, considering them to be colonialist interference in their part of the world. Being such close buddies with the west, the US/allies attacked Iraq, instead of them.
Not much to investigste, there.
The Russian security services were cheerfully blowing up their own citizens in the late nineties. They stopped short of 3000, tho possibly only because they were caught red-handed.
Now that is a "conspiracy theory" that stands up to a modicum of scrutiny.
I've never really understood what people supposed the US hoped to achieve by invading Iraq etc. Oil? After all, they don't have their own ...
The Princess Diana conspiracy nonsense is plausible compared to this load of old tripe.
Now that is a "conspiracy theory" that stands up to a modicum of scrutiny.
I've never really understood what people supposed the US hoped to achieve by invading Iraq etc. Oil? After all, they don't have their own ...
The Princess Diana conspiracy nonsense is plausible compared to this load of old tripe.
No government could be ... "so dastardly as to kill 3000-odd of their own civilians"
That's how they were hoping the world would react.
btw ... the US Govt does not regard 3,000 as a high death toll. In the US, someone dies on the road every 16 minutes. In the past 65 years, the smallest number of people killed the road in the US has been 32,479, in 2011.
So, since those 3,000 people were killed by "foreign aggressors", over 330,000 Americans have been killed by other Americans crushing them under their cars.
But those 330,000 deaths are an irrelevance in the public perception. Americans get hugely worked up about stopping perceived terrorists from "killing us". But they are not so worked up about killing each other, every single month.
So was a death toll of 3,000 inconceivable? No, it was a drop in the ocean. In September 2011, more people were crushed to death under cars than died in 9/11.
So it didn't significantly increase the number of Americans who died prematurely. But it did significantly increase the willingness of the whole world to support military action against a perceived enemy.
So, IF 9/11 was the result of a plot ... would the authorities sacrifice 3,000 lives? Yes. Because, in statistical term, 3,000 is a very small number.
That's how they were hoping the world would react.
btw ... the US Govt does not regard 3,000 as a high death toll. In the US, someone dies on the road every 16 minutes. In the past 65 years, the smallest number of people killed the road in the US has been 32,479, in 2011.
So, since those 3,000 people were killed by "foreign aggressors", over 330,000 Americans have been killed by other Americans crushing them under their cars.
But those 330,000 deaths are an irrelevance in the public perception. Americans get hugely worked up about stopping perceived terrorists from "killing us". But they are not so worked up about killing each other, every single month.
So was a death toll of 3,000 inconceivable? No, it was a drop in the ocean. In September 2011, more people were crushed to death under cars than died in 9/11.
So it didn't significantly increase the number of Americans who died prematurely. But it did significantly increase the willingness of the whole world to support military action against a perceived enemy.
So, IF 9/11 was the result of a plot ... would the authorities sacrifice 3,000 lives? Yes. Because, in statistical term, 3,000 is a very small number.
@joggerjayne
You are still basically asserting that there is someone out there who has the rank or authority (or just plain riches) to order the mass murder of his own compatriots and the psychopath-like absence of the emotion of guilt required for this to not rest on their conscience for the rest of their life.
@SevenOP
Is there any chance you could save us all at least 1hr 55minutes by giving us the fast-wind point to whichever part of the documentary the big reveal is lurking in?
Or just give us the gist, in words?
You are still basically asserting that there is someone out there who has the rank or authority (or just plain riches) to order the mass murder of his own compatriots and the psychopath-like absence of the emotion of guilt required for this to not rest on their conscience for the rest of their life.
@SevenOP
Is there any chance you could save us all at least 1hr 55minutes by giving us the fast-wind point to whichever part of the documentary the big reveal is lurking in?
Or just give us the gist, in words?
Hypognosis:> "@SevenOP ...Is there any chance you could save us all at least 1hr 55minutes by giving us the fast-wind point to whichever part of the documentary the big reveal is lurking in?
Or just give us the gist, in words?"
Hypognosis, I acknowledge the effort that you put into some of your posts and try a few minutes at each of these times in the video:
12:29 minutes, 39:16 and 58:00.
And here is in 52 seconds a summary of the Hearing findings of 'the independent and impartial scholars' in ^this video^ Media URL: https://youtu.be/kpiVv8tQdmY?t=15m28s
Description:
Or just give us the gist, in words?"
Hypognosis, I acknowledge the effort that you put into some of your posts and try a few minutes at each of these times in the video:
12:29 minutes, 39:16 and 58:00.
And here is in 52 seconds a summary of the Hearing findings of 'the independent and impartial scholars' in ^this video^ Media URL: https://youtu.be/kpiVv8tQdmY?t=15m28s
Description:
@SevenOP
I watched the first segment and it is about the apparent demolition of building seven. (Does this have any link to your username, by the way?) It would have saved time if you'd saud so, from the start, but I guess you wanted to get people to check the bid, not simply dismiss the thread, just by the title?
Okay, so the twin towers are on fire and everyone is convinced WW3 is breaking out. The White House or the President may or may not have been harmed. Persons with the required authority to launch a counterstrike may have been lost. Give me reasons why they *wouldn't* panic and want to stop something in that building from falling into enemy hands?
Alternatively, explain how they set off explosives inside it without shattering any of the vast expanses of window glass, as seen in the repeating bits of footage?
Also, the comparison free-falling building seems to break into 3 sections, forming a small, yet visible, step between each, before falling, sequentially but at such a speed that, superficially, they appear to fall in unison. Building 7 goes down as a single, solid lump, like it is sinking into liquid.
Has there ever been and land reclaimation at the tip of Manhattan? Didn't the post 9/11 excavation have to pump water out continuously because it was more like clay than bedrock?
I watched the first segment and it is about the apparent demolition of building seven. (Does this have any link to your username, by the way?) It would have saved time if you'd saud so, from the start, but I guess you wanted to get people to check the bid, not simply dismiss the thread, just by the title?
Okay, so the twin towers are on fire and everyone is convinced WW3 is breaking out. The White House or the President may or may not have been harmed. Persons with the required authority to launch a counterstrike may have been lost. Give me reasons why they *wouldn't* panic and want to stop something in that building from falling into enemy hands?
Alternatively, explain how they set off explosives inside it without shattering any of the vast expanses of window glass, as seen in the repeating bits of footage?
Also, the comparison free-falling building seems to break into 3 sections, forming a small, yet visible, step between each, before falling, sequentially but at such a speed that, superficially, they appear to fall in unison. Building 7 goes down as a single, solid lump, like it is sinking into liquid.
Has there ever been and land reclaimation at the tip of Manhattan? Didn't the post 9/11 excavation have to pump water out continuously because it was more like clay than bedrock?
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
"I've Missed Two Appointments With...
Body & Soul20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.