'"911 debunkers---those deaf, dumb and blind (to logic, physics and evidence) accessories to a crime---spend far more time attacking those of us in the 911 Truth Movement than seeking either truth or justice. Far easier for these sad and misguided citizens to accept the Big Lie of 911 than stare into the harsh light and accept the fact that when they defend the "official story" they defend liars, incompetents, embezzlers, war criminals, poisoners and torturers."
I watched the all of this 2 hr + lecture. Jones gave many assumptions, cracked many snide jokes, but came up with no real proof for his accusations. I`m not a scientist but I was by no means convinced by his arguments.
the other buildings were supposed to fall on it. The offical version was to be the weight of lodged debris and traumatic structural damage due to falling wtc1 and 2. Both of which were set to topple in the broader area surrounding the complex. The demolishionists erred on the side of caution. If either topppled to far the collateral damage would negative instead of positive.
The evidence is overwhelming, and so is the amount of fools this country harbors, who believe it fell from fire damage. Ridiculous. Try to find a story about a skyscraper collapsing due to fire...
just ask Larry 'pull it' Sylverstine , that basrard knows everything
sweetalkerallan 4 years ago
'"911 debunkers---those deaf, dumb and blind (to logic, physics and evidence) accessories to a crime---spend far more time attacking those of us in the 911 Truth Movement than seeking either truth or justice. Far easier for these sad and misguided citizens to accept the Big Lie of 911 than stare into the harsh light and accept the fact that when they defend the "official story" they defend liars, incompetents, embezzlers, war criminals, poisoners and torturers."
randallcaster 4 years ago
I watched the all of this 2 hr + lecture. Jones gave many assumptions, cracked many snide jokes, but came up with no real proof for his accusations. I`m not a scientist but I was by no means convinced by his arguments.
alanth252 4 years ago
the other buildings were supposed to fall on it. The offical version was to be the weight of lodged debris and traumatic structural damage due to falling wtc1 and 2. Both of which were set to topple in the broader area surrounding the complex. The demolishionists erred on the side of caution. If either topppled to far the collateral damage would negative instead of positive.
jsarndt420 4 years ago
The evidence is overwhelming, and so is the amount of fools this country harbors, who believe it fell from fire damage. Ridiculous. Try to find a story about a skyscraper collapsing due to fire...
skitzovoice 4 years ago 2