Humint Events Online: A Short History of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

A Short History of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement

posted by spooked at 6:47 AM

2 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

Thanks for posting this.

I don't know Ms. Chapman or her previous work. I've studied many of the issues and arguments touched on in this post.

On the one hand, I 100% support the contention that the evidence about the destruction of the WTC Towers points toward unconventional methods, in addition to conventional Controlled Demo materials (thermate, etc.). In this regard, I support Ms. Chapman and sources such as Webfairy that she cites.

However, who it comes to Nico, and others who put forward the no-planes idea, there are two areas that they don't seem to account for:

1) What produced the sound for each airborne "plane" in Manhatten (captured on video, huge numbers individual accounts).

2) The specific pictures and videos are subject to reasonable interpretations that don't fall into line with "TV Fakery". (There are many details here that have to be taken case by case.)

My own idea is that none of the alleged passenger planes crashed at any of the "accident" scenes. However, denying that an aircraft that looked like a plane existed and impacted the WTC 1 and 2 is implausable in many ways. I realize those who disagree with my contention here will want to know my reasoning or proof on this. I'll have to provide that elsewhere.

I agree that the aircraft, in order to enter the buildings in a "cartoon-like" manner would necessarily be constructed and have physical characteristics completely different that commercial airliners. I agree that it appears that "aircraft parts" were planted around the WTC. I agree that the "explosions" upon impact appear to have included pyrotechnics, either from the building or from the 'fake' aircraft.

I welcome the open exchange of ideas. However, when particular arguments from Ms. Chapman include trying to "take down" Alex Jones, Steven Jones, and David Ray Griffin, I believe a line is being crossed that has to raise alarms about what is behind the arguments.

For what's it's worth I got concerns about these individuals of my own, but I repudiate the simplistic arguments that Ms. Chapman uses against these people.

9:20 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

I tend to agree with you, BG.

11:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger