Films/DVD Asylum

That's more-or-less the hypothesis on UA 93, thank you. BUT...

208.58.2.83

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

clarkjohnsen

(R)

In Reply to: Those two scenarios are apples and oranges posted by Bersani on April 30, 2006 at 10:12:14:

..."the hypothesis that the WTC buildings were purposefully demolished with explosives is ludicrous." Sorry, but it isn't. You don't have to make too thorough a study to discover the dissenting views. PLUS we have on camera the owner saying that #7, which went down later that day, was an intended demolition. On camera, on PBS!
Now I ask you, how different did that fall look from the two towers?
And also, since it normally takes days if not weeks to set up a demolition, how did it happen that the charges were successfully put into place in just a few short hours? And with such confusion and danger nearby?
You have to think these things through for yourself, unassisted by consensus reality.
clark

Follow Ups:

Re: That's more-or-less the hypothesis on UA 93, thank you. BUT... - Wendell Narrod 18:04:33 05/20/06 (0)
Clark, that is simply not true. I visited the site last October. I had a long talk with the farmer who saw it crash. It was directly below his home. He was loading firewood for the winter when he saw the plane come in, invert, and go nose first into the ground. There were no flames and obvious signs of damage. There was no missile. People always want a conspiracy.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.

You can not post to an archived thread.