9/11 and Physical Evidence
Truth be told, since I started this blog about 13 months ago, I have come around 180 degrees about physical evidence and 9/11.
Initially, I paid far too much attention to 9/11 disinformation artists like Mike Ruppert, Mark Rabinowitz, John Judge, the people of 9/11truth.org and others who kept telling me to avoid the physical evidence of 9/11 because it was too controversial and not solid proof of anything.
The fact is, the physical evidence of 9/11 is astounding and is MUCH MORE convincing that 9/11 was an inside job, than trivia about the hijackers and forewarnings. Yes these other parts of 9/11 are important, but the physical evidence is all the proof we really need.
Just look at the physical evidence for four key aspects of 9/11:
1) the collapse of WTC2: clearly controlled demolition
2) the collapse of WTC1: clearly controlled demolition
3) the collapse of WTC7: clearly controlled demolition
4) the crash of flight 93: clearly faked
These things alone demolish the official 9/11 story and immediately point to 9/11 being an inside job.
And this is simply leaving out the strange case of the Pentagon as well as "the pod" on flight 175!
What finally convinced me about the physical evidence was two things:
1) communicating with scientists who were convinced by the physical evidence, more than other aspects of 9/11, that 9/11 was an inside job
2) the way so many "9/11 activists" have avoided the physical evidence when it is so damning
The physical evidence is astounding, amazing and utterly convincing, and FUCK the people who say to avoid the physical evidence. The people who tell you to avoid the physical evidence are disinfo agents, pure and simple. They want you to ignore the powerful truth of 9/11-- that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that the plane crashes were hoaxes.
Interestingly, my current view of 9/11 actually lets the CIA off the hook, to some extent. That is, if the hijackings were primarily a hoax, then the CIA didn't screw up after all. This is a gross over-simplification, but it makes me wonder if the 9/11 disinfo agents are trying to pin 9/11 on the CIA and away from the military (the more likely culprits in my view). The Able Danger story and stories that hijackers trained with the US military then begin to make a lot more sense.
The FBI had nothing to do with planning 9/11 I believe, but were absolutely critical for the cover-up.
In any case, the key point I have learned is that the physical evidence reveals the horrible and incredible truth of 9/11, and thus the physical evidence needs to be emphasized by activists.
Initially, I paid far too much attention to 9/11 disinformation artists like Mike Ruppert, Mark Rabinowitz, John Judge, the people of 9/11truth.org and others who kept telling me to avoid the physical evidence of 9/11 because it was too controversial and not solid proof of anything.
The fact is, the physical evidence of 9/11 is astounding and is MUCH MORE convincing that 9/11 was an inside job, than trivia about the hijackers and forewarnings. Yes these other parts of 9/11 are important, but the physical evidence is all the proof we really need.
Just look at the physical evidence for four key aspects of 9/11:
1) the collapse of WTC2: clearly controlled demolition
2) the collapse of WTC1: clearly controlled demolition
3) the collapse of WTC7: clearly controlled demolition
4) the crash of flight 93: clearly faked
These things alone demolish the official 9/11 story and immediately point to 9/11 being an inside job.
And this is simply leaving out the strange case of the Pentagon as well as "the pod" on flight 175!
What finally convinced me about the physical evidence was two things:
1) communicating with scientists who were convinced by the physical evidence, more than other aspects of 9/11, that 9/11 was an inside job
2) the way so many "9/11 activists" have avoided the physical evidence when it is so damning
The physical evidence is astounding, amazing and utterly convincing, and FUCK the people who say to avoid the physical evidence. The people who tell you to avoid the physical evidence are disinfo agents, pure and simple. They want you to ignore the powerful truth of 9/11-- that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that the plane crashes were hoaxes.
Interestingly, my current view of 9/11 actually lets the CIA off the hook, to some extent. That is, if the hijackings were primarily a hoax, then the CIA didn't screw up after all. This is a gross over-simplification, but it makes me wonder if the 9/11 disinfo agents are trying to pin 9/11 on the CIA and away from the military (the more likely culprits in my view). The Able Danger story and stories that hijackers trained with the US military then begin to make a lot more sense.
The FBI had nothing to do with planning 9/11 I believe, but were absolutely critical for the cover-up.
In any case, the key point I have learned is that the physical evidence reveals the horrible and incredible truth of 9/11, and thus the physical evidence needs to be emphasized by activists.
posted by spooked at 9:43 AM
3 Comments:
Dear Spooked:
Glad you've come around!
Maybe you should re-watch the videos of the '2nd plane impacting' the south tower, frame by frame. You will probably notice some things that are anomalous to say the least.
As to Mike Ruppert, I thoroughly enjoyed LMAO at his opus "Crossing The Rubes I've Conned", he's lucky Ian Fleming isn't around to sue him for theft of a one dimensional villian.
Whoa ... did somebody forget to take their medication?
Post a Comment
<< Home