911
See other 911 Articles
Title: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11'
Source:
Your News Wire
URL Source: http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/
Published: Jul 15, 2017
Author: Baxter Dmitry
Post Date: 2017-07-15 11:46:40 by Hondo68
Keywords: Follow the money, classic controlled demolition, many loose ends
Views: 51583
Comments: 108
79-year-old retired CIA agent, Malcom Howard, has made a series of astonishing claims since being released from hospital in New Jersey on Friday and told he has weeks to live. Mr. Howard claims he was involved in the “controlled demolition” of World Trade Center 7, the third building that was destroyed on 9/11. Mr. Howard, who worked for the CIA for 36 years as an operative, claims he was tapped by senior CIA agents to work on the project due to his engineering background, and early career in the demolition business. Trained as a civil engineer, Mr. Howard became an explosives expert after being headhunted by the CIA in early 1980s. Mr. Howard says has extensive experience in planting explosives in items as small as cigarette lighters and as large as “80 floor buildings.” The 79-year-old New Jersey native says he worked on the CIA operation they dubbed “New Century” between May 1997 and September 2001, during a time he says the CIA “was still taking orders from the top.” Mr. Howard says he was part of a cell of 4 operatives tasked with ensuring the demolition was successful. Mr. Howard says the World Trade Center 7 operation is unique among his demolitions, as it is the only demolition that “we had to pretend wasn’t a demolition job”. He claims he had no problem going through with the deception at the time, because “when you are a patriot, you don’t question the motivation of the CIA or the White House. You assume the bigger purpose is for a greater good. They pick good, loyal people like me, and it breaks my heart to hear the shit talk.” [John Kerry Admits WTC 7 Was Brought Down By Controlled Demolition] But even he admits that now, looking back, “Something wasn’t right.” “No good has come from this. This isn’t the America we envisioned.” Explaining how the building was bought down, Mr. Howard says, “It was a classic controlled demolition with explosives. We used super-fine military grade nanothermite composite materials as explosives. The hard part was getting thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms into the building without causing too much concern. But almost every single office in the Building 7 was rented by the CIA, the Secret Service, or the military, which made it easier.” Mr. Howard explains that WTC 7 was “loaded with explosives in strategic places” in the month leading up to the day that changed the course of American history. On September 11th, while the North and South towers burned, fuses were ignited in World Trade Center 7, and nanothermite explosions hollowed out the building, destroying the steel structure, removing the reinforcements, and allowing the office fires to tear through the rest of the building, hollowing it out like a shell. World Trade Center 7 collapsed into its own footprint at 5:20pm, seven hours after the destruction of WTC 1 and 2. The building shocked witnesses by coming down at the speed of freefall, indicating that it encountered zero resistance on the way down. Mr. Howard and his colleagues had done their job. “When the building came down, it was such a rush. Everything went exactly to plan. It was so smooth. Everybody was evacuated. Nobody was hurt in WTC 7. We were celebrating. We kept watching replays of the demolition, we had the whiskey and cigars out, and then all of a sudden the strangest thing happened. We all started to worry that it looked a bit too smooth. We watched the tape again and again and again and we started to get paranoid. It looked like a controlled demolition. We thought shit, people are going to question this. And then we heard that people from the street were reporting that they heard the explosions during the afternoon. When we were told that the BBC botched their report and announced to the world that the building collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did… At that point we really thought the gig was up.” According to the official 9/11 report issued by the government, WTC 7 collapsed due to “uncontrolled fires” that were caused by debris that floated over from WTC 1 and 2, which had been hit by passenger planes. If the official narrative was true, WTC 7 would be the first tall building in the world to ever collapse due to uncontrolled fires, and the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed into itself, due to “office fires.” Mr. Howard and his colleagues feared the public would see through the official narrative and rise up against the government, demanding to be told the truth. “There were so many loose ends, so much evidence left behind. We thought the public would be all over it. We thought there would be a public uprising that the media couldn’t ignore. They’d be funding investigations and demanding to know why they were being lied to. We thought they’d find chemical composites in the area that would prove Building 7 was blown up. “We thought there would be a revolution. It would go all the way to the top, to President Bush. He’d be dragged out of the White House. “But none of that happened. Almost nobody questioned anything. The media shot down anyone who dared question anything they were told.” Follow the money Mr. Howard claims he has “no direct knowledge” about the destruction of North and South Towers of the World Trade Center, explaining that “CIA operations are very specific” and that it is common to be working on a larger project while only understanding a small piece of the puzzle. [9/11: Larry Silverstein Designed New WTC-7 One Year Before Attacks] But he has advice for investigators seeking to understand the entire puzzle and work out who was behind the most devastating attack on American soil in history. “Follow the money.” “When you want to find out who is behind something, just follow the money. Look at the trades made just before 9/11. These are the guys that knew what was coming. The sons of CIA agents, government officials. Close relatives of the most powerful men in America. Cheney, Rumsfeld. They all got rich. It wasn’t just the contracts awarded to their friends in the construction business and the wars and the kickbacks.” “It was insider trading.” Many countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Monaco launched insider trading investigations in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, believing that if they could prove Al-Qaeda operatives profited on the stock market then they could prove the terror organization was behind the attacks. And all the evidence pointed to heavy insider trading around 9/11. Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Martino, said: “I think that there are terrorist states and organizations behind speculation on the international markets.” German central bank president, Ernst Welteke, said his researchers had found “almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.” Even CNN reported that regulators were seeing “ever-clearer signs” that someone “manipulated financial markets ahead of the terror attack in the hope of profiting from it.” Mr. Howard says that a serious study of who profited on the stock market from 9/11 would “tear the heart out of the oligarchy in America.” “There is only one organization that spans the entire world, and let me tell you now, it isn’t and it never was al-Qaeda.” It’s the CIA. “There could never be a real investigation. The entire shadow government, as you call them now, are implicated.” The 79-year-old, spending his final weeks at home, said he doesn’t expect to be taken into custody following his confession because “then they’d have to go after everyone else. They will just use the media to attack me. They are all on the payroll to suppress everything around 9/11.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-11) not displayed.
.
.
.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)
Fire, I think. Interesting theory even if a little wild. Some sort of fire? And why the buildings 6 and 5 that were in between and much closer suffered much less damage (mostly by debris and demolished later in the cleanup)? Were they fireproof?
They were no more fireproof than WTC 7 or the two big towers. But they were very small buildings compared to the towers. Surely you recognize these are fundamentally different types of buildings from the three towers.
Fire, I think. If you blow on it real hard.
I'll defer to your expertise.
Surely you recognize these are fundamentally different types of buildings from the three towers. Well, you mean that smaller buildings that are much closer to the source of your fire are more resistant? Very interesting theory. Why would it be so?
Meh. Soon I'll end up with my own unprovable CT theories, like the Truther nuts. I tend to accept the official explanations mostly because I'm sick of the Truther nutjobs and their endless novel theories and their "experts" out to make a quick buck off these mentally ill misfits. I am most skeptical of the claims that the buildings were of impeccable construction with all materials up to spec. I've never had that much confidence in the promises of perfect designs and even less confidence in the corrupt NYC building trades. Maybe the towers would have stood if the designs were executed to the architect's specs and they actually had the materials of the quality they were supposed to have. But if they didn't... Don't be too shocked. We find out on a regular basis that suppliers cheat on materials or that bridges or buildings were not properly assembled as they should have been. And those big towers, if ever collapsing even a few inches, would then pancake downward inevitably, just from the momentum and their sheer mass.
Fire, I think. Seriously? Preliminary Results of WTC7 Study Show Fire Could Not Have Caused Collapse I am most skeptical of the claims that the buildings were of impeccable construction with all materials up to spec. Maybe the towers would have stood if the designs were executed to the architect's specs and they actually had the materials of the quality they were supposed to have. Yeah - I guess the QC on these buildings was much better than here. Raging Fire Engulfs Two Skyscrapers In United Arab Emirates, No Collapse Raging Fire Engulfs Two Skyscrapers In United Arab Emirates, No Collapse Oh, and WTF is up with this? BBC Reporting Building 7 Collapse before it happened. (If this does't wake you up nothing will) Yes, I know you are equipped with endless lists of links. No doubt, you're scouring them now so you can start posting them all again in a Truthy linkfest. You've done it to death. Not really. You don't bother to check your old links before you post them or you would know that that video has been pulled from YouBoob. Maybe it's Them, silencing another profound Truthery.
Some folks go for the "official stories," which leak like a sieve, like a virgin goes for her panties. Whatever goes down the memory hole, what the BBC did lives for all time as a monumental goof. You'll never outlive that.
Judging by that defunct video link, I have already outlived the alleged BBC video. Deal with it.
If Wolf Blitzer didn't verify it from the Situation Room, it never happened! You are too drôle, sir. Of course, if YouBoob deletes it, it never happened. Silly me.
If it exists, you should be able to find it on the BBC website. It was and still is the story of the century. Is BBC really throwing out its own valuable 9/11 footage?
Tooconservative knows CGI when he sees it.
No, they claim to have accidentally "lost" the footage. 4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle. *** The amazing thing about YouTube is that nothing is ever really "lost". *SHOCK!!!* You mean WTC 7 *didn't* come crashing down within its footprint after all?? You mean it wasn't actually a casualty from being "weakened by fire and debris"?? HA!! LOVE ANY confession/admission from Spooks -- even on their Highway-to-Hell death-bed. Spook: “There were so many loose ends, so much evidence left behind. We thought the public would be all over it. We thought there would be a public uprising THAT THE MEDIA COULDN'T IGNORE.... We thought they’d find chemical composites in the area that would prove Building 7 was blown up." Uh, um, yes...in an America world that ISN'T ALREADY hijacked. Well about "The Media"....They *tried* to report honestly -- especially with respect to Building 7 coming down 20 minutes BEFORE it actually came down. But who can blame them for messing up their scripts that day? How funny were the lines, ["We left] so much evidence left behind [that] we thought the public would be all over it. [And that] there would be a public uprising THAT THE MEDIA COULDN'T IGNORE."?? HA!! So what are the Spooks gonna do now? Shut up a cadaver?? Gee, let's play "PREDICT THE FUTURE": I predict this guy's ID and every last vestige and verification of his existence is already scrubbed. As well of "confirmed" claims that he's a certifiable nut. "FOLLOW THE MONEY"...Mr. Howard says that a serious study of who profited on the stock market from 9/11 would “tear the heart out of the oligarchy in America.” A "serious" study"? Even cursory study of Poppy Bush's fake Iraq War I to 9/11 to 0bammy's buried dossier to the current not-so-soft-coup would expose this shadow goob and its shadow army of mercs as filthy, satanic traitors and saboteurs. Let's face it, many well-meaning people -- patriots and incredible analytic minds -- can't and won't ever be able to wrap their head around the notion that mercenary Global-First Enemies Within plotted, *enabled*, engineered, and conducted the entire WTC take down, as well as the Pentagram Job. The Muzzies were convenient patsies. (btw, the Patriot Act was enacted 17 days after 9/11. Already conveniently penned, sitting in an "OUT" basket and jammed down America's throat WITHOUT ANYONE READING IT!! Ergo THE template of no longer examining bills was established. After how they (the Media and the bi-partisan Globalist Firsters) have lied and gone after Trump, how can ANY one believe ANYTHING this Media and gubmint (and all its tentacles) have fed you in the past?
But...but...but...
Fairly easy to do.
But wait a second. Wasn't this guy trained as a CIA demolitions expert with access to all their best explosives and accessory gear? Why no info on the explosives, the detonators, the arming and detonation sequences, the placement of the charges, how they managed to enter secure buildings to do the demolition work, etc.? It's not a credible account. There's almost nothing there offered as evidence.
No need. Regular folk will not figure that out anyway.
That's a whole bunch to cough up on yer death bed, I'd think. Never-the-blinkin'-less, I can find no corroboration for the story at the head of this thread. It's just a bit too cute.
I would like to see ANY evidence for ANY plausible cause. You said fire from the two towers did it - can you point to any evidence, I mean the evidence as opposed to bare assertions? Or is it like with hound of the Baskervilles that did not bark? Or criminal case where all fingerprints are wiped out from the gun?
Never-the-blinkin'-less, I can find no corroboration for the story at the head of this thread. It's just a bit too cute. Of course it is. He says of 9/11 that it was unique in his career as the only CIA demolition job that they couldn't talk about and had to keep secret. So what were these other CIA demolitions? Surely after he participated in the crime of the century in the worst attack on American soil in its history, he could cough up a few details about his other CIA demolition jobs that he claims were not a secret at all, just as he wheezes out his last breath? Oh, wait! He isn't breathing his last breath. He's actually out of the hospital now and perking right along. Turns out this was no deathbed confession at all. I really feel I'm wasting keystrokes even trying to debate a 9/11 fable that is so incredibly stupid and evidence-free. If you're going to go Truthing, believing this guy is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I think this guy was never in the CIA at all (except maybe as a janitor or landscaper). Let's see some pay stubs and other records to prove he worked for them or one of their known fronts. I think he's just a Truther geezer that wants some attention.
I said those were just my thoughts. I'm not starting my own Truther movement at all. I mentioned it because it is an explanation that you never hear and yet it is hardly unheard of for big NYC building projects to be completed with terrible quality construction materials due to graft and corruption and fraud. NYC is notorious for it. And if we listen to Occam, don't we have to consider bad materials and poorly executed designs to be just as likely as our own government deciding to murder thousands of its own citizens so it can gin up a war in the Mideast? Occam tells us both are relatively simple propositions. If anything, the MIHOP Truther theory is far far more complex than my simple proposal of bad building materials and inadequate build quality. The real topic here is this supposed ex-CIA demolitions specialist who doesn't seem to know anything about the details of his own demolition of WTC 7 in the greatest act of treason in the country's history and the worst attack on American soil. But, no, you're ready to believe him with no proof at all. It's a completely fact-free account. It really amounts to a kind of Truther religious belief, a matter of faith, not facts. How do you know he even worked for the CIA? For that matter, if you're a mega-Truther and all more-Truthy-than-thou and stuff, how do you know this guy isn't a CIA ringer being sent out to make this big announcement just so he can be discredited and make all the sincere Truthers look like complete fools? Do you really want to believe something like this so badly that you will suspend all sense of judgment and reasonable standards for evidence and testimony just so you can cling to this old attention whore geezer and his phony "deathbed confession" (which it wasn't because he got so much better that they released from the hospital and he's out tooling around Jersey now)?
You misunderstand Occam. He did not say that the simplest explanation is true. He said that if two theories explain something equally well, we should pick the simpler one (what is a very common sense thing). When a new fact appears that makes these two theories not equally good, we should pick the better one no matter if more complex. I would like first to see some explanation that makes sense. Your thoughts on the remote fire ie theory (theories are thoughts) do not seem more plausible to me than others. Now, for the full disclosure, I have no clue what really happened. Maybe because I did not do my homework.
All three theories offered are about equally simple or plausible so Occam doesn't help us much. I brought Occam in to point out that my theory is no more complex and therefore no more unlikely than the official explanation or the MIHOP/LIHOP Trutheries.
To repeat, Occam did not say that simpler theory is more likely to be true. Just that if two theories have equal predictive value, the simpler one is better to be picked. For example the Newtonian explanations in most of situations are simpler. It does not mean that they are truer. Beside, what Occam (or other philosopher) said is not a infallible dogma or final word. For example Russel "solved" certain key logical paradoxes by banning them, and most of people today accept his fatwa on their knees. You cannot avoid the work - if you want to come closer to the truth you need to put your nose to the grindstone.
Unless one believes it was a one-man operation, there was a conspiracy. The only real question is who were members of the conspiracy. I am unable to explain what is readily available for observation in the destruction/collapse of the three towers. However, I am tired of official explanations that fly in the face of science, physics in particular. The fall of 7WTC is documented as having reached and maintained gravitational acceleration, or free fall, and maintained said free fall for several seconds. This implies the lower parts of the building exerted zero resistance to descent of the falling parts. The official report of NIST makes no attempt to explain what it was forced to admit. The report only proceeds to the point of collapse initiation. In 1WTC and 2WTC we can observe that the floors are being pulverized before reaching the bottom. Giant beams are thrown hundreds of feet horizontally into buildings across the street. This is supposedly a gravitational collapse. In order to pulverize a floor due to gravity, a downward force must be applied. In order for the downforce to pulverize a floor, an equal and opposite resisting force must be exerted by the floor being pulverized. If the floor being pulverized did not offer such resistive force, it would simply move out of the way without being pulverized. If such a resistive force is present, it will slow the rate of descent. It takes an enormous downforce meeting an enormous resisting upforce to create the enormous horizontal force needed to hurl a huge steem beam hundreds of feet. The existence of such a resisting force speaks against any collapse nearing free fall. For a symmetrical collapse on all sides, a gravitational fall would require precise, simultaneous structural failure on all sides. Nature tends to chaos, not order. In nature, tall buildings do not tend to fall straight down into their own footprint. They never, ever, achieve gravitational acceleration. I am not saying what did it, just that the official conspiracy theory is not more persuasive than some of the other theories out there.
That's a whole bunch to cough up on yer death bed, I'd think. Roger that. Never-the-blinkin'-less, I can find no corroboration for the story at the head of this thread. Why expect corroboration on something like this? Those people generally prefer to die of natural causes -- never mind the responsibility for family member "accidents."
It's not "regular folk" the 911 conspirators and the Globalist machination worries about. The Seth Rich's of the world do quite enough damage.
What about such theory - there were 4 planes and three buildings to go down (one plane was a reserve). But only two planes came so it took time for the third building to be destroyed. Otherwise all three would go in the same time. Is it simpler, Sir? ;)
And I repeat that my own pet theory is no more implausible than the official one or the MIHOP or LIHOP Trutheries. You seem quite dense on this point.
I agree.
You seem quite dense on this point. Well, a remote fire is hard for me to fathom. But what do I know.
If we start heading for the weeds, then all of these theories fail the simpler-is-better-or-most-plausible test (or however you wish to state it). You know you're starting to beat a dead horse here because you have no conclusive evidence to offer. Nor do I. What we have are suspicions.
Excellent post. Unless one believes it was a one-man operation, there was a conspiracy. The only real question is who were members of the conspiracy...I am unable to explain what is readily available for observation in the destruction/collapse of the three towers. However, I am tired of official explanations that fly in the face of science, physics in particular. Amen. And has ANY one YET explained the live report from the BCC that Building 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED?? I mean, COME ON, MAN!! That indicated either a pre-written SCRIPT or tip from insider sources WHO KNEW what was coming. The lying dung this global Ministry of Propaganda and its partners in NWO Crime -- the bi-wing, bi-partisan WHORE PARTY -- are allowed sell as "OFFICIAL" *without question* STILL -- as well as obedience TO our pathologically lying, seditious overlords, is astounding. Since 911 we've just withstood 16 years of discredited bi-partisan/media bullsh*t, an over-officious state, AND subservient respect to our Islamic immigrants/jihadists-in-waiting...and yet SOMEHOW in retrospect the "Official" 911 report and supposed events are to be believed?? No difference in the lies surrounding the events of 911 and the SAME Ministry of Propaganda and gubmint globalists who've promoted and advanced the lies, treason, and sabotage of Donald Trump while shielding 0bama, Hillary, Lynch, Comey, etal. Just...wow.
I mean, COME ON, MAN!! That indicated either a pre-written SCRIPT or tip from insider sources WHO KNEW what was coming. I'm gonna go with "the female news reader was transported into the future via Dr. Who's TARDIS time machine." That's a lot more believable than the BBC's explanation that it was just a "cock-up".
There is plenty of evidence that thermate (a type of thermite) was used to bring the buildings down. That you haven't made the effort to study it is not conclusive. So far what I've seen is that your knowledge of anything is 5 minutes on Google deep. Yet you blow and blow.
Some suspicions started before the event ;) The Lone Gunmen episode aired March 4th, 2001, with the intrepid conspiracy theorists:
Comments (52 - 108) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"I tried for years to figure out why the third tower collapsed. Any ideas?"
#13. To: A Pole (#12)
And why the buildings 6 and 5 that were in between and much closer suffered much less damage (mostly by debris and demolished later in the cleanup)? Were they fireproof?
#14. To: A Pole (#12)
"I tried for years to figure out why the third tower collapsed. Any ideas?"
#15. To: Anthem (#14)
If you blow on it real hard.
#16. To: Tooconservative (#13)
They were no more fireproof than WTC 7 or the two big towers. But they were very small buildings compared to the towers.
#17. To: A Pole (#16)
Very interesting theory. Why would it be so?
#18. To: Tooconservative, Anthem, A Pole, Stoner, hondo 68, rlk, Boris Y (#17)
I tried for years to figure out why the third tower collapsed. Any ideas?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#19. To: Deckard (#18)
BBC Reporting Building 7 Collapse before it happened. (If this does't wake you up nothing will)
#20. To: Tooconservative (#19)
You don't bother to check your old links before you post them or you would know that that video has been pulled from YouBoob.
#21. To: randge (#20)
Whatever goes down the memory hole, what the BBC did lives for all time as a monumental goof. You'll never outlive that.
#22. To: Tooconservative, CNN Wolf Blitzer, Situation Room (#21)
the alleged BBC video
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#23. To: Tooconservative (#21)
#24. To: randge (#23)
Of course, if YouBoob deletes it, it never happened.
#25. To: Tooconservative, All (#24)
#26. To: Tooconservative, randge (#24)
Is BBC really throwing out its own valuable 9/11 footage?
The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7 “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#27. To: hondo68, ALL (#0)
(Edited)
#28. To: Deckard, Tooconservative, randge (#26)
The amazing thing about YouTube is that nothing is ever really "lost".
#29. To: Liberator (#27)
So what are the Spooks gonna do now? Shut up a cadaver??
#30. To: Liberator (#27)
How funny were the lines, ["We left] so much evidence left behind [that] we thought the public would be all over it. [And that] there would be a public uprising THAT THE MEDIA COULDN'T IGNORE."??
#31. To: Liberator (#27)
I predict this guy's ID and every last vestige and verification of his existence is already scrubbed.
#32. To: Tooconservative, All (#30)
Why no info on the explosives, the detonators, the arming and detonation sequences, the placement of the charges, how they managed to enter secure buildings to do the demolition work, etc.?
#33. To: Tooconservative (#30)
(Edited)
There's almost nothing there offered as evidence.
#34. To: randge (#32)
That's a whole bunch to cough up on yer death bed, I'd think.
#35. To: A Pole (#33)
I would like to see ANY evidence for ANY plausible cause. You said fire from the two towers did it - can you point to any evidence, I mean the evidence as opposed to bare assertions?
#36. To: Tooconservative (#35)
#37. To: Tooconservative (#35)
I said those were just my thoughts. ... And if we listen to Occam, don't we have to consider ...
#38. To: A Pole (#37)
You misunderstand Occam. He did not say that the simplest explanation is true. He said that if two theories explain something equally well, we should pick the simpler one (what is a very common sense thing). When a new fact appears that makes these two theories not equally good, we should pick the better one no matter if more complex.
#39. To: Tooconservative (#38)
I brought Occam in to point out that my theory is no more complex and therefore no more unlikely
#40. To: Tooconservative, Anthem, A Pole, Stoner, hondo 68, rlk, Boris Y, Deckard (#17)
[Tooconservative #9] No one is going to take your crazy pills or subscribe to your ignorant debunked crackpot conspiracy theories.
[Tooconservative #17] I tend to accept the official explanations mostly because I'm sick of the Truther nutjobs and their endless novel theories and their "experts" out to make a quick buck off these mentally ill misfits.
#41. To: randge, Tooconservative, All (#32)
("Why no info on the explosives, the detonators, the arming and detonation sequences, the placement of the charges, how they managed to enter secure buildings to do the demolition work, etc.?")
#42. To: A Pole (#31)
#43. To: Tooconservative (#38)
(Edited)
I brought Occam
#44. To: A Pole (#39)
To repeat, Occam did not say that simpler theory is more likely to be true. Just that if two theories have equal predictive value, the simpler one is better to be picked.
#45. To: nolu chan (#40)
I am not saying what did it, just that the official conspiracy theory is not more persuasive than some of the other theories out there.
#46. To: Tooconservative (#44)
And I repeat that my own pet theory is no more implausible than the official one or the MIHOP or LIHOP Trutheries.
#47. To: A Pole (#43)
Is it simpler, Sir? ;)
#48. To: nolu chan, Tooconservative, Anthem, A Pole, Stoner, hondo 68, rlk, Boris Y, Deckard (#40)
#49. To: Liberator (#48)
And has ANY one YET explained the live report from the BCC that Building 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED??
#50. To: Tooconservative (#47)
You know you're starting to beat a dead horse here because you have no conclusive evidence to offer.
Nor do I.
#51. To: Tooconservative, (#47)
(Edited)
What we have are suspicions.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]