http://yournewswire.com/shocking-list-o ... g-attacks/

Moderators: Virginia_R, nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R
Interesting and eye opening read, but some of it was just waffle. I think the bar for 'official proven' is quite low.Esox Lucius wrote:Make of this what you want.
http://yournewswire.com/shocking-list-o ... g-attacks/
It's been stated (how do you do your own investigation to prove it?) that only three high rise buildings have ever collapsed due to fire (the twin towers and building 7) yet there are interviews with people on the street who were convinced the buildings was going to come down. Hindsight maybe but what historical evidence gave them the impression that something that had never happened before was going to happen?trevsinclair85 wrote:I'm convinced 9/11 was orchestrated by the US. Who in the US is the question (CIA, or a shadowy part of the government). So many holes in the official story.
Ask people to explain to you building 7, and look closely at the confusion on their face. "What building 7??"
I'm not really expecting that GT, but rather a site where there is some reasoned debate. Most of what I have seen is the same "proven" false flag attacks that are self referencing with little or no validation. I have a completely open mind on the subject as I do with all conspiracies but am quickly put off by ascertations that well it must be like that because it makes sense to me. I guess I just want to avoid this type of thing:GaryT wrote:1 - 53 is the same list as previously posted.
Everyone has an agenda, even if its just for the truth to be heard so it's going to be difficult to find anything that is agenda or propaganda free IMO.
I have, a site about 9/11. One thread was about how the planes could not have been flown by inexperienced pilots and hit dead centre of the buildings (or at least not having a wing poking out one side). The problem was that it quickly became apparent that the site was infected with people who were not up for discussion but were sticking rigidly to their "it's all nonsense" position. There were trained pilots on both sides of the debate but one side just didn't smell right, if you know what I mean. It was too long ago to remember the details but it is widely reported that there are people paid to uphold the governments position in forums all around the world and this smelled like one of those. I came to the conclusion that the only balanced debate would be a live one between two very well known (or at least accredited) individuals who, armed with years of research, could state their case clearly and concisely. I can't recall one of those which is not surprising because one of them would be lying and unless you have an awful lot of counter evidence to back up your lying position, you're on a sticky wicket from the word go.BiscuitRanger wrote:Thanks for the info GT. Have you ever come across a site were a particular alleged event is discussed rather than stated.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest