TRU The truth is in here and out there
Je ziet het niet maar toch is het er... Alles over mysterieuze, onverklaarde, spirituele en occulte zaken.
Multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3747
Theologian Says Controlled Demolition is Now a Fact, Not a Theory
Kevin Barrett – Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance For 911 Oct 22, 2005
In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a presentation entitled "The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A Christian Theologian Speaks Out." Dr. Griffin has continued to blaze a trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials have feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of one of the most powerful indictments of the official story, the collapse of the towers and WTC 7.
Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen’s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim’s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.
Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns.
The towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop at free-fall speed.
The massive core columns--the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire.
There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust. The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward.
These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s important to note that Dr. Griffin is one of many prominent intellectuals--including the likes of Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and Peter Phillips--who have seen through the major discrepancies of the official explanation of 9/11 and have risen to challenge it. These brave individuals represent the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of discreet 9/11 skeptics. Indeed, 9/11 skepticism appears to be almost universal among intellectuals who have examined the evidence, since there has not yet been a single serious attempt to refute the case developed by Dr. Griffin and such like-minded thinkers as Nafeez Ahmed and Mike Ruppert. As for the general public, polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.
How, then, can the mainstream US media continue to ignore the story of the century? Perhaps the best answer was given by Dr. Griffin himself in the conclusion of his talk, and is worth quoting at length:
"The evidence for this conclusion (that 9/11 was an inside job) has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.
"There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:
"'The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of "X-Files" proportions and insidiousness.'
"The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.
"In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion.
Dr. Griffin’s speech given at the University of Wisconsin earlier this year, entitled "9/11 and the American Empire," was broadcast twice on C-SPAN. In late September Dr. Griffin was asked to give expert testimony at hearings sponsored by Cynthia McKinney and the Congressional Black Caucus investigating the 9/11 Commission Report. He is currently Professor Emeritus at Claremont College in California.
This weekend's events were sponsored by NY911truth.org, WBAI and the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth: http://mujca.com.
Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1932.htm
---
Controlled Demolition Versus Pancaking, dat is waar 't uiteindelijk dus op neerkomt.
Dr. Thomas Eagar zegt daarover, als reactie op de vraag "The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?":
"It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending."
Het commentaar van Jim Hoffman daarop is:
"There are several problems with Eagar's argument.
- The core of each tower was 87 by 133 feet wide. The South Tower's top started to lean in the direction of its shorter dimension, so it only had to lean about 44 feet, on average, before its center of gravity cleared the core structure. Photographs show that the top did indeed lean that much before it was engulfed in the explding cloud of rubble.
- The fact that the South Tower's top was already rotating meant that it should have continued to rotate and rotate faster, as any toppling object does. Yet instead of continuing to topple, it started to righted itself as it began to explode.
- Regardless of whether the top of either tower was tipping, there is no explanation for the destruction of the cores, which would have survived the pancaking of the floor diaphragms.
- Eagar's argument does not begin to explain the explosiveness of the collapses."
Tot zover deze 9/11 update
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3747
Theologian Says Controlled Demolition is Now a Fact, Not a Theory
Kevin Barrett – Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance For 911 Oct 22, 2005
In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a presentation entitled "The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A Christian Theologian Speaks Out." Dr. Griffin has continued to blaze a trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials have feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of one of the most powerful indictments of the official story, the collapse of the towers and WTC 7.
Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen’s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim’s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.
Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns.
The towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop at free-fall speed.
The massive core columns--the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire.
There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust. The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward.
These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s important to note that Dr. Griffin is one of many prominent intellectuals--including the likes of Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and Peter Phillips--who have seen through the major discrepancies of the official explanation of 9/11 and have risen to challenge it. These brave individuals represent the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of discreet 9/11 skeptics. Indeed, 9/11 skepticism appears to be almost universal among intellectuals who have examined the evidence, since there has not yet been a single serious attempt to refute the case developed by Dr. Griffin and such like-minded thinkers as Nafeez Ahmed and Mike Ruppert. As for the general public, polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.
How, then, can the mainstream US media continue to ignore the story of the century? Perhaps the best answer was given by Dr. Griffin himself in the conclusion of his talk, and is worth quoting at length:
"The evidence for this conclusion (that 9/11 was an inside job) has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.
"There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:
"'The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of "X-Files" proportions and insidiousness.'
"The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.
"In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion.
Dr. Griffin’s speech given at the University of Wisconsin earlier this year, entitled "9/11 and the American Empire," was broadcast twice on C-SPAN. In late September Dr. Griffin was asked to give expert testimony at hearings sponsored by Cynthia McKinney and the Congressional Black Caucus investigating the 9/11 Commission Report. He is currently Professor Emeritus at Claremont College in California.
This weekend's events were sponsored by NY911truth.org, WBAI and the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth: http://mujca.com.
Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1932.htm
---
Controlled Demolition Versus Pancaking, dat is waar 't uiteindelijk dus op neerkomt.
Dr. Thomas Eagar zegt daarover, als reactie op de vraag "The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?":
"It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending."
Het commentaar van Jim Hoffman daarop is:
"There are several problems with Eagar's argument.
- The core of each tower was 87 by 133 feet wide. The South Tower's top started to lean in the direction of its shorter dimension, so it only had to lean about 44 feet, on average, before its center of gravity cleared the core structure. Photographs show that the top did indeed lean that much before it was engulfed in the explding cloud of rubble.
- The fact that the South Tower's top was already rotating meant that it should have continued to rotate and rotate faster, as any toppling object does. Yet instead of continuing to topple, it started to righted itself as it began to explode.
- Regardless of whether the top of either tower was tipping, there is no explanation for the destruction of the cores, which would have survived the pancaking of the floor diaphragms.
- Eagar's argument does not begin to explain the explosiveness of the collapses."
Tot zover deze 9/11 update
O, ye Fountains, Meadows, Hills, and Groves
Illuminati! Skull n Bones!!
Voor al uw FIFA lijstjes!
Op donderdag 7 november 2019 15:14 schreef Buitendam het volgende:
Ik heb zó om je gelachen dinsdagavond, ouwe reus. :D
Op donderdag 7 november 2019 15:14 schreef Buitendam het volgende:
Ik heb zó om je gelachen dinsdagavond, ouwe reus. :D
Oh nee de "waarheid" is boven tafel.
Supra Groningam Nihil
Postjubilea: 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000
Sit jou kop in die koei se kont en wag tot die bul jou kom holnaai
Wat niemand je vertelt over de bioindustrie, geen bloed maar feiten
Postjubilea: 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000
Sit jou kop in die koei se kont en wag tot die bul jou kom holnaai
Wat niemand je vertelt over de bioindustrie, geen bloed maar feiten
geef me diezelfde informatie afkomstig van CNN en ik lul met je mee. Ik heb mij heel lang in die materie verdiept infowars is ook een goede site daarvoor. Maar het moet een keer de mainstream pakken...jammer alleen dat USA zo bekrompen en gecontroleerd wordt dat dit nooit echt doorbreekt
Voor al uw FIFA lijstjes!
Op donderdag 7 november 2019 15:14 schreef Buitendam het volgende:
Ik heb zó om je gelachen dinsdagavond, ouwe reus. :D
Op donderdag 7 november 2019 15:14 schreef Buitendam het volgende:
Ik heb zó om je gelachen dinsdagavond, ouwe reus. :D
The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version.
Tsja...
Tsja...
O, ye Fountains, Meadows, Hills, and Groves
En van alle mainstream noem je CNN???quote:Op vrijdag 28 oktober 2005 15:39 schreef SaferSephy het volgende:
geef me diezelfde informatie afkomstig van CNN en ik lul met je mee. Ik heb mij heel lang in die materie verdiept infowars is ook een goede site daarvoor. Maar het moet een keer de mainstream pakken...jammer alleen dat USA zo bekrompen en gecontroleerd wordt dat dit nooit echt doorbreekt
Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu
"Those who look before they leap, never leap".
http://www.dierenthuis-naar-almere.nl
"Those who look before they leap, never leap".
http://www.dierenthuis-naar-almere.nl
Een theoloog die bewijst dat het een controlled demolitian was. Als het nou een architect was geweest dan kon ik er nog iets mee. Dit is net zo iets als een bioloog die de relativiteitstheorie onderuit haalt.
Mja, ook maar 12% van de amerikanen gelooft in de evolutietheorie. Dus zullen we die ook maar weggooien dan?quote:Op vrijdag 28 oktober 2005 13:59 schreef Hallulama het volgende:
As for the general public, polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.
En voor de rest zie ik dezelfde argumenten weer, die al eerder zijn besproken. Niet echt iets nieuws.
Dit heb ik alt wel intrigerend gevonden, alleen spijtig dat er geen concrete bewijzen van zijn ...quote:Op vrijdag 28 oktober 2005 13:59 schreef Hallulama het volgende:
The massive core columns were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire.
I understand how you feel. You see, it's all very clear to me now. The whole thing. It's wonderful.
Bron?quote:Op zaterdag 29 oktober 2005 00:29 schreef Wombcat het volgende:
[..]
Mja, ook maar 12% van de amerikanen gelooft in de evolutietheorie. Dus zullen we die ook maar weggooien dan?
Stel dat er geen hypothetische veronderstellingen bestaan.
Is dit een schijnvraag waarin het antwoord al besloten ligt?
>>> Geen referrertje in sigs <<<
Is dit een schijnvraag waarin het antwoord al besloten ligt?
>>> Geen referrertje in sigs <<<
Stond laatst (vorige week) in Trouw (kan ook 18% geweest, ik weet het getal niet precies uit mijn hoofd. Het was iig enorm laag).quote:
Wat erg eigenlijk. Dat zijn dus, als we het ruim bekijken, 80% potentiële stemmers die de machtigste man op aarde moeten gaan kiezen en niet geloven in iets als de evolutie-theorie.quote:Op woensdag 2 november 2005 20:05 schreef Wombcat het volgende:
[..]
Stond laatst (vorige week) in Trouw (kan ook 18% geweest, ik weet het getal niet precies uit mijn hoofd. Het was iig enorm laag).
Stel dat er geen hypothetische veronderstellingen bestaan.
Is dit een schijnvraag waarin het antwoord al besloten ligt?
>>> Geen referrertje in sigs <<<
Is dit een schijnvraag waarin het antwoord al besloten ligt?
>>> Geen referrertje in sigs <<<
Ja, dat dacht ik er ook bij.quote:Op woensdag 2 november 2005 20:08 schreef kanaiken het volgende:
[..]
Wat erg eigenlijk. Dat zijn dus, als we het ruim bekijken, 80% potentiële stemmers die de machtigste man op aarde moeten gaan kiezen en niet geloven in iets als de evolutie-theorie.
In relatie tot dit topic bedoelde ik er vooral mee te zeggen: dat mensen iets geloven hoeft nog niet te betekenen dat het waar is.
(Ik heb ook wel eens gelezen dat de meerderheid van de amerikanen dacht dat WO2 tegen Rusland was geweest. En ook leuk: van een duitse vriend die een tijdje in amerika is geweest gehoord dat hij daar nogal eens de volgende vraag te horen kreeg: "wie is nu eigenlijk jullie führer tegenwoordig".)
Maar jouw overtuiging (en die van vele anderen) dat er verder niets aan de hand is, behalve een aanslag met vliegtuigen, is toch evenzeer een geloof?quote:Op woensdag 2 november 2005 20:11 schreef Wombcat het volgende:
Ja, dat dacht ik er ook bij.
In relatie tot dit topic bedoelde ik er vooral mee te zeggen: dat mensen iets geloven hoeft nog niet te betekenen dat het waar is.
Wij worden toch allemaal gevoed door de media; het beeld dat je van iets hebt hangt geheel af van de media en de sites die je kiest om je te laten informeren. We kiezen een partij, we kiezen een visie, en gaan daarna lopen zeggen dat dat de waarheid was. Zonder dat we er zelf bij waren, of ook maar enige andere reden hebben, anders dan door anderen aangedragen en selectief tot ons genomen.
Ik doe hiermee geen uitspraak over die aanslagen. Heb ik geen idee van, ik ken zelfs de feiten niet. Oh ja ik kan allerlei sites gaan bekijken, van welke kant dan ook. Maar zijn dat inderdaad feiten, zijn dat de énige feiten? Hoe kan ik daar ooit iets van zeggen? Hoe kunnen anderen die slechts achter hun pc-tje zitten daar iets van zeggen..?
Persoonlijk vind ik dus degenen die steeds maar roepen dat er niks aan de hand was net zo ongefundeerd als degenen die roepen dat er wél iets aan de hand was. Waarbij ik wel moet zeggen dat het onvermogen van de 'officiele' zijde om veel van de conspiracy-punten te ontkrachten me wel zorgen baart. Dus kan ik me een twijfel aan die officiele lezing niet onderdrukken.
Iteejer, wat doet die verdorven signature onder je uitstekende post, bent u into zelfkastijding ofzoietsch?
(dude, seriously, get rid of it)
(dude, seriously, get rid of it)
O, ye Fountains, Meadows, Hills, and Groves
Ik heb een user zitten sarren die pro Youp Klaphek was, en heb me daar dermate kostelijk vermaakt dat ik me dat ff heb toegeigend 'Stuk vreten' - ik ben een stuk vreten Magnifiekquote:Op woensdag 2 november 2005 20:48 schreef Hallulama het volgende:
Iteejer, wat doet die verdorven signature onder je uitstekende post, bent u into zelfkastijding ofzoietsch?
(dude, seriously, get rid of it)
Ik heb een user zitten sarren die pro Youp Klaphek was, en heb me daar dermate kostelijk vermaakt dat ik me dat ff heb toegeigend 
'Stuk vreten' - ik ben een stuk vreten
Wow, dit gaat best goed .quote:"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
[..]
It’s important to note that Dr. Griffin is one of many prominent intellectuals--including the likes of Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and Peter Phillips--who have seen through the major discrepancies of the official explanation of 9/11 and have risen to challenge it. These brave individuals represent the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of discreet 9/11 skeptics. Indeed, 9/11 skepticism appears to be almost universal among intellectuals who have examined the evidence, since there has not yet been a single serious attempt to refute the case developed by Dr. Griffin and such like-minded thinkers as Nafeez Ahmed and Mike Ruppert. As for the general public, polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.
. It's only a question of time when the shit will hit the fan
Ow, en ongefundeerd . Je kan op de verschillende tv beelden van het instorten de explosieven af zien gaan. Met je eigen ogen . Niemand die na het kijken van Loose Change of In Plane Site nog kan beweren dat het officiele verhaal klopt
. Je kan op de verschillende tv beelden van het instorten de explosieven af zien gaan. Met je eigen ogen 
"You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy."
'The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of "X-Files" proportions and insidiousness.'
Daar moeten "we" eerst maar eens overheen zien te komen.
Daar moeten "we" eerst maar eens overheen zien te komen.
O, ye Fountains, Meadows, Hills, and Groves
Yep, dat is zeker iets dat mee zal spelen. Soms kost de waarheid te veel, in de ogen van degenen die de mogelijkheden hebben die waarheid definitief te laten zien.quote:Op woensdag 2 november 2005 21:47 schreef Hallulama het volgende:
'The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of "X-Files" proportions and insidiousness.'
Daar moeten "we" eerst maar eens overheen zien te komen.
Ik twijfel absoluut niet aan het feit dat de VS heeft laten gebeuren of zelf mede heeft mogelijk gemaakt, maar Loose Change en In Plane Site zijn naar mijn mening de grootste disinformatie rond 9/11. Deze documentaires zitten zo vol met misleidingen, door opzettelijk verkeerde weergave van filmbeelden, getuigenverslagen en foto's, dat iedereen die ook maar een beetje moeite doet om dit te verifiëren er zo door heen zou moeten prikken.quote:Op woensdag 2 november 2005 21:28 schreef Sebastral het volgende:
[..]
Wow, dit gaat best goed .
It's only a question of time when the shit will hit the fan
Ow, en ongefundeerd . Je kan op de verschillende tv beelden van het instorten de explosieven af zien gaan. Met je eigen ogen . Niemand die na het kijken van Loose Change of In Plane Site nog kan beweren dat het officiele verhaal klopt
Ja de pentagon crash lijkt verdacht, ja het lijkt alsof de WTC torens instorten door explosieven... maar niks hiervan is onomstotelijk te bewijzen en deze theorieen druisen in tegen alle logica.
Wat je overhoud in deze documantaires zijn een paar legitieme vragen en een hoop onzin.
Voor degenen die nog steeds bovenstaande documantaires geloven zie de twee artikelen op de site van een medeuser. (Merovingian.)
http://home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd050/JoeR/home.html
Verder vraag ik hier niemand om van gedachten te veranderen, maar alleen om nog eens na te gaan wat je nou werkelijk kan bewijzen. Bekijk de argumentatie nauwkeurig, volg de stappen en de logica, probeer er boven te staan en mogelijkheden open te houden.
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed - if all records told the same tale - then the lie passed into history and became truth. Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past."
Eerst zien, dan geloven . In mijn ervaring hebben weinig mensen daar moeite mee.
. In mijn ervaring hebben weinig mensen daar moeite mee. Precies wat er aan de hand is . Maar als de helft van de new yorkers weet dat het een leugen is ben ik benieuwd of ze op tijd een werkende politiestaat van de grond krijgen .quote:"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels
. Maar als de helft van de new yorkers weet dat het een leugen is ben ik benieuwd of ze op tijd een werkende politiestaat van de grond krijgen
"You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy."
THEY NEEDED A NEW PEAR HARBOR
Niemand 2 vandaag gezien een maand of 3 geleden. Waarin 1 Engelse minister en een Duiste met de meest Bizare onthullingen kwamen over 9/11 ???
Zo Bizar eigenlijk dat mensen het niet willen [kunnen] geloven.
Maar ja,zo gaat het met de meeste feiten die het veilige wereldbeeld van mensen overhoop zouden gooien.
Vandaar meestal de spot of mensen negeren het gewoon.
Ik verbaas me nergens meer over.
Niemand 2 vandaag gezien een maand of 3 geleden. Waarin 1 Engelse minister en een Duiste met de meest Bizare onthullingen kwamen over 9/11 ???
Zo Bizar eigenlijk dat mensen het niet willen [kunnen] geloven.
Maar ja,zo gaat het met de meeste feiten die het veilige wereldbeeld van mensen overhoop zouden gooien.
Vandaar meestal de spot of mensen negeren het gewoon.
Ik verbaas me nergens meer over.
gelijk
"Word bokser, dan heb je meer kans op slagen"
"Mensen die nooit wat geven, daar krijg ik wat van"
"Word bokser, dan heb je meer kans op slagen"
"Mensen die nooit wat geven, daar krijg ik wat van"
Dat gaat voor beide kanten op.quote:Op woensdag 2 november 2005 22:24 schreef Sebastral het volgende:
Eerst zien, dan geloven . In mijn ervaring hebben weinig mensen daar moeite mee.
[..]
Precies wat er aan de hand is . Maar als de helft van de new yorkers weet dat het een leugen is ben ik benieuwd of ze op tijd een werkende politiestaat van de grond krijgen .
Ik twijfel er absoluut niet aan dat de docu's waar ik naar verwijs onvolledig en suggestief zijn, maar om ze af te doen als een hoop onzin en de grootste disinformatie omdat het niet objectief genoeg is valt me heel erg tegen van je open mind . Nu doe je alsof het niet zinvol is om ze te kijken en dat is niet waar. Er blijft meer dan genoeg over waar je zelf je conclusie uit kan trekken en daarom blijven ze nuttig. Bovendien kijkt Loose Change tenminste een beetje redelijk weg.quote:Op woensdag 2 november 2005 22:18 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
[..]
Ik twijfel absoluut niet aan het feit dat de VS heeft laten gebeuren of zelf mede heeft mogelijk gemaakt, maar Loose Change en In Plane Site zijn naar mijn mening de grootste disinformatie rond 9/11. Deze documentaires zitten zo vol met misleidingen, door opzettelijk verkeerde weergave van filmbeelden, getuigenverslagen en foto's, dat iedereen die ook maar een beetje moeite doet om dit te verifiëren er zo door heen zou moeten prikken.
Ja de pentagon crash lijkt verdacht, ja het lijkt alsof de WTC torens instorten door explosieven... maar niks hiervan is onomstotelijk te bewijzen en deze theorieen druisen in tegen alle logica.
Wat je overhoud in deze documantaires zijn een paar legitieme vragen en een hoop onzin.
Als je een betere docu weet hoor ik het graag natuurlijk
"You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy."
