Humour Video : 9/11 conspiracy theories ridiculous. Al qaeda says.

Will, most of those sites and articles don't attack the 9/11 truth experts. They only attack wingnuts with free blogger accounts. The "movement" is a lot bigger, has official positions and questions, and is starting to generate publicity and political clout.

I mentioned that the Truth movement was picking up steam. It really is in a big way.

Here is a video from a presentation given to the European Parliament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smzZFmI5lt4

The Japanese fellow is a MP from Japan who had a nationally televised inquiry in his country. He really takes the Japanese government to task for not investigating the deaths of Japanese citizens.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2680190129949942423&hl=en-GB

---

Still no moonbat hunters that can explain how WTC 7 fell? You should see the video of how it fell, with the penthouse first. Jesse Ventura was a UDT demolitions specialist in the military, and his opinion is that looks just like a controlled demolition.

So we have a building falling, without having been impacted by a plane, away from the other 2 that fell, and it doesn't get investigated by the Commission, which the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission wrote in the NYT (Jan 08) that he feels their investigation was obstructed.

Yep, time for new investigation!

 

I was curious about this as I was not aware of any conspiracy theories. So I check the wiki page and this is what is says:

On November 20, 2006, the BBC's Newsnight presented research by Shane O'Sullivan alleging that several CIA agents were present on the night of the assassination. On November 20, 2007, O'Sullivan released a video documentary entitled RFK Must Die, providing an update on his investigation and findings.

. . .

At the end of his documentary, however, Mr. O'Sullivan not only casts doubt upon his own presentation up to that point, but practically debunks the entire premise advanced that there were three identified CIA operatives in the ballroom with no business being there. O'Sullivan reveals that the two men who were previously identified in the documentary as "Campbell" and "Joannides" were in fact two now-deceased Bulova Watch Company employees, at the Ambassador for a company convention. They are further revealed in other footage of the ballroom on the night of the assassination, in various innocent situations, laughing, talking with others, etc., prior to the shooting of Senator Kennedy. After the shooting, they are shown in television news footage, listening to witnesses, unabashedly wandering before presumably openly visible television cameras, generally looking quite casual and not in any hurry to depart the area. Footage of "Campbell" in particular had been shown several times earlier in the documentary in seemingly suspicious movements, appearing hurriedly to depart the ballroom after the shooting, touching his chest furtively as if concealing a gun, etc.; the later footage in the documentary debunks this entire earlier premise by showing his casual, unhurried movements immediately before and thereafter. He remained in the ballroom at the time of the shooting.

Moreover, the impressively positive identifications by CIA operatives and acquaintances over time of "Morales" as being a man in the ballroom footage, (and equally at home casually appearing several times in front of obviously placed television cameras after the shooting, including once during an interview of a witness in the kitchen pantry where the shooting took place), were called into question also by O'Sullivan's revelation of clearer photographs than the grainy, early-sixties photo used through most of the documentary for viewer comparison to the man in the film footage. The latter photograph indeed greatly resembled the man in the Ambassador ballroom footage; but the clearer photos, taken in 1967 and 1969, showed a man who does not nearly so greatly resemble the man in the Ambassador footage of June 5, 1968.

O'Sullivan himself expresses doubt in the end that "Morales" in the film footage at the Ambassador and the man positively identified as Morales in the 1967 and 1969 clear photos are the same man.

In the end, O'Sullivan's documentary tends to debunk itself. Whether Sirhan, however, was "handled", brainwashed, manipulated or hypnotized as a "Manchurian candidate", is extensively explored by the documentary, but in the end is loaned no more than speculation by the effort. The analysis, however, is at once intriguing and even plausible.​

Color me unimpressed.

 

The Popular Mechanics debunking is about 50% nonsense.

No steel framed building had ever burned down before. Even bigger fires.

And yet three in a one block area burned down on the same day.

The odds of that happening, are so amazing, when you factor in that the 3rd building was not hit by a plane.

Not to mention, that all of the buildings nearly free fell.

When you add up all of these coincidences, it's amazing!

I recommend anyone with curiosity about 9/11 truth read this,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq

 

Yeah, but if you're familiar with Wikipedia, that entry is unsourced, and it's strictly opinion. It's about as worthy as a blog post.

Btw, the issue isn't whether or not CIA was there. It's that RFK was shot 4 times from behind, and Sirhan Sirhan by all accounts was in front of him, and may not have fired more than one shot.

Which eliminates the whole "crazed Palestinian" theory if it is true.

 

Its amazing that people still talk about the jfk consiracy as something only lunatics believe in, yet few people will ever mention the house select committee investigation that said there WAS probably a conspiracy in the assasination of jfk.

When in a position of ultimate power, it usually corrupts absolutely. It has been this way throughout history.
The roman empire did it by setting smaller countries within its empire against each other. The only way any government is kept in check is by awareness of the masses. Few of the elite can resist this temptation to play god.

 

Here is the information on Leslie Nelson, one of the WTC structural engineers.

Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001: WTC Structural Engineer Says Trade Center Designed for 707 Crashing Into It
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090301robertson#a090301robertson

(Source links at original link above)

Here is some more interesting stuff...

Principal Electrical Engineer for WTC: "Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT Bring the Towers Down"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13840

 

This thread getting very interesting

 

That is an odd comment from the person who directed people to look at wiki.

 

That crazed palestinian theory never washed with me as rfk never showed a bias one way or never against either people. If he would have become president he would have opened the investigation up on his brothers assasination and that is what probably got him killed, and i have talked to vietnam vets when i used to pass food out to them and there werea few who were at the bay of tonkin and they also knew it was staged.

 

You loons are funnier than The Onion.

 

I agree with willspencer, someone bann that video before real people actually see it and condemn those actions, shhhhhh everyone dont u guys dare show any stuff like that. How did they let this stuff get out? I mean doesnt it blow the cover story that the settlers are humble and minding their own business?

 

Hey pingpong, you been drinkin' again?

 

Yep, its a special non alcoholic brew called unbiased truth, man and i never drank before

 

You have to be careful with that, many people like the biased "truth", otherwise why would fox news be so popular? (I can't help but cringe and/or laugh when I put the words fox and news next to each other)

 

Why did WTC Tower 7 have to collapse? Was it really burining like hell? Was it so badly damaged that it collapsed. It was a god-damned steel-framed building, and it just collapsed?

What about towers 3, 4, 5 & 6? Why didn't they collapse? Were they lightly damaged as compared to building 7?

What does the evidence lead to? What do the structural engineers say about Tower 7?

All this, and more, right here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0&feature=related

 

Are you suggesting that there was some sort of conspiracy?

 

Shhhh..... Its a secret...

 

Not at all. If you follow how Wikipedia works, people will occasionally try to editorialize an entry, which is what the portion you quoted was. It was unsourced opinion, posted to the wiki as fact.

Discrediting ideas by trying to associate the originators as comedians or mentally ill is as old as time.

There will be a new investigation. With the international attention, it's going to be unavoidable.

 

So true, its even funnier when we put truth next to fox lol

 

I think there's a conspiracy against the conspiracy theorists to disprove their conspiracy theories.