Barry
WHAT ARE YOUR THEORIES?
Long read but worth it, very interesting!
After a long 10 years of watching footage after footage on the 9/11 attacks" some of the things just don't add up?
1. Not one person saw any plane hit the twin towers that day. Some say they seen an object/missile shaped but NO plane. If you have a look at "September clues" on youtube it will give you a better insight. Now for an example take a car hitting into a concrete wall at a steady speed of just 20mph, the front of the car would be smashed into pieces even at a very slow speed. But on 9/11 wee see video footage of a 'plane' travelling at 500-600 mph. The video shows the plane crashing through the twin towers and out through the other side with the nose of the plane still entact, and not one bit of damage can be seen on the nose of the plane. A 'blackout' occured as soon as the nose came out of the building as a coverup so hopeing no one saw the undamaged nose. Coincidence?...I think not. TV has been lying through their noses the whole time. At one incident, it shows a plane heading diagonally down towards the middle of the south tower, but in another shot, the plane is heading in perfect straight line towards the top of the tower. A plane could NEVER EVER incline that much in such a short distance, it would at least have to take 10 times the distance before impact.
2. Colour contrast of every news team was TOTALLY different. 1 was a dark brown colour, other light blue almost white another was even a shade of green... what is wrong here is that TV news has beenrigged to fool us that we were watching 'live' TV, i was not live at all... the news we seen was a reinactment 1 hour before impact, ABC News made a quick yet noticeable mistake... the time on their channel said 7.50 instead of 8.50 another 'blackout' occured when they noticed this and it quickly changed the time. Anchors from at least 4 news channels had read their 'script' as you can clearly tell it was written for them. 2 anchors said "I couldn't believe wehen the missi (achem) plane hit the first tower. Everything was computerised...when the 1st plane hit the tower, it just 'absorbed into the towers causing no damage in the side of the tower after th crashes, but when the explosion occured OH we'll put in some effects to look like a plane went throught the building.
3. When passers by wanted to film the towers either using a video camera or phone it could not be done as all filming equipment includling cell phones were blocked for the hour, but "conicidently" all news cameras could work perfectly. This why no one can prove there were planes involved only news cameras, but remember not one passer by seen ANY planes, just an object and explosion.
3. The people interviewed were actors, in 3 DIFFERENT videos, there was a shout from ONE woman saying "Oh My God!" the same womans voice appeared in three different videos (more detailed on september clues on youtube.) A teenage boy was interviewd on the street and you could tell the people in the background of the video were fake..believe it or not its true, the 'man' walking behind the interviwer was a 'glass man' aka computerised human (take a look at the video yourself it;s very clear mistake they have made.)
4. The news channels all had the same feed (connected to one another) just for this one shot. The backdrop (scenary) around the twin towers were different in each of the news channels...in ABC it showed the whitestone bridge, but in CNN, there was no sign of the bridge in the background, did it dissapear for a moment?...I dont think so..silly mistake by the 'editing' crew.
These are just a small few of other interesting things that are included in "September Clues" on youtube. Take a look at it for yourself.
I'm still trying to figure out why we had to be 'lied' to? One of my theories is that, for some reason I think this is tying in with the NEW World Order (Denver Airport Conspiracy)... do the actors and stooges in 9/11 become immune to the order now that they have played their role?
Answer
The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.
The discovery of active thermitic materials adds to a vast body of evidence that the total destruction of the Towers were controlled demolitions, and to the subset of that evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic materials to implement those demolitions.
That discovery also undermines the oft-heard claim that no explosives residues were found, a claim that was never compelling, given the apparent lack of evidence that any official agency looked for evidence of explosive residues of any kind. Worse, the public record shows that NIST not only failed to look for such evidence, it repeatedly evaded requests by scientists and researchers to examine numerous facts indicating explosives and incendiaries.
The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.
The discovery of active thermitic materials adds to a vast body of evidence that the total destruction of the Towers were controlled demolitions, and to the subset of that evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic materials to implement those demolitions.
That discovery also undermines the oft-heard claim that no explosives residues were found, a claim that was never compelling, given the apparent lack of evidence that any official agency looked for evidence of explosive residues of any kind. Worse, the public record shows that NIST not only failed to look for such evidence, it repeatedly evaded requests by scientists and researchers to examine numerous facts indicating explosives and incendiaries.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment