• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What's the point?

AMTMAN

Muse
AMTMAN
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
579
We have all heard the arguments put forth by people like Steven Jones regarding controlled demolitions on 9-11. The question I have is what was the point of it? Afterall, why go through all the trouble of placing devices in the WTC and risking discovery? Why would you even need to do a controlled demolition when flying an aircraft with passengers into a building full of civilians is an act of war? Seems to be overkill if you ask me.
 
Because you want to make the operation as complex as possible. If it's really complex, only those with l33t google and Youtube skills can figure out the truth; the intellect of people with above average intelligence just can't handle the operation's intricacy.
 
It is idiotic, but most of the speculation seems to go along the line of what Kevin Ryan said last week, that it had to be done for psychological effect. Like having 2000 people dead and two smoking unusable towers in the middle of Manhattan would not accomplish that.
 
Yup. Just imagine the bragging rights Bush and Cheney would have at the NWO company parties for pulling off this ludicrously complex plan right in the face of the mindless sheeple.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think a better question is why hide it? Just use explosives and say the arabs did it.

Throw the planes in, too. Say the terrorists did the whole thing.
 
Perhaps it is very difficult for some people to believe a small group of men, could cause so much destruction...

So it's easier to believe that a VAST NWO is trying to take over the world.....

Makes 'em sleep easier I suppose...
 
JamesB said:
It is idiotic, but most of the speculation seems to go along the line of what Kevin Ryan said last week, that it had to be done for psychological effect. Like having 2000 people dead and two smoking unusable towers in the middle of Manhattan would not accomplish that.
Click to expand...

I guess they would have us beleive that we all would have forgiven Al-Queda if it were not for the towers collapsing. By the way, has anyone asked Indiana Jones about this?
 
Wouldn't the remains of thousands of oxygen starved office workers preserved in mint condition, with pictures of their hands frozen in the position of gasping for air, be a more effective war tactic? Think of the thousands of individual funerals you could have, with the bodies in coffins.
There is no chance in hell they could repair the buildings, so would have to strip down their own 110 skyscraper in full public display and full humiliation of the entire world. They are the ones to knock it down. It would be like scrubbing off someone elses graffiti. Humiliation.

Like a perfect designer being very imperfect for designing the rubbish human jaw, I'd fire anyone who came up with this terrible idea.
 
Last edited:
Apparently the NWO/Illuminati/Bilderberg/Reptoids want to eat our brains so they use seekrit chemicals randomly sprayed from commercial aircraft to reduce our intelagin...intelligant.... brains (or marinate them?) and use vaccines to implant ideas into our feet and then, in order to steal the oil in someone elses back yard, they fly planes into buildings 8000 miles away, coz they're clever like that. Innit?
 
Obviously if they had not CDed WTC 1 & 2, they wouldn't have collapsed, and therefore wouldn't have started fires in WTC7 to cover for the CD of that building. EVERYONE WUDDA KNOWN WTC7 WUZ A CD!!!!!
 
I'm curious as to what some of the truhers here at the JREF forums have to say.
 
The point is according to twoofers, America should be guilty of everything bad that is happening: be it terrorist attacks, building collapse, tsunamis or their inability to get a job and girlfriend.
 
I seriously think it is about casting aspersions on a hated government. The argument doesn't have to make sense, as long as it plants the image that the US government is this bad monster that lives under your bed.

It is the same logic behind the thought that the Freemasons, Bilderburgers, NAFTA, NAU and golbalization are all bad as well. No evidence of course, just the statements of "Globalization is bad, mmm-k, because Alex Jones said so".

I was talking to a CT after he posted all kinds of wild woo on another forum and he made this interesting comment to me in a PM: "It is my job to seed the minds of the jury pool". :boggled:

Wow.
 
JamesB said:
It is idiotic, but most of the speculation seems to go along the line of what Kevin Ryan said last week, that it had to be done for psychological effect. Like having 2000 people dead and two smoking unusable towers in the middle of Manhattan would not accomplish that.
Click to expand...

That was certainly an interesting explanation by Ryan. Looking at it on a meta-level, one of the obvious flaws that we see in CT thinking is that they think everything that happened was meant to happen. Its most bizarre form comes when they say "what are the odds that three of the four planes would hit their targets?" as if that were the intended outcome.

There are no random outcomes to the paranoid.
 
Last edited:
Here is my take...

The truth movement, as a whole, hates America as they see it.

The two factions that seem to make up the majority of the movement, namely the far right and the extreme left, have a vision of what America is, that is in direct contrast with the America they want...

The far right wants America to become isolationist. Put up the walls, and keep everyone out.

The extreme left wants America to be the arbiter, seeking only peace, holding hands with the rest of the world.

The America that both see, however, is a pushy, arrogant, power hungry, warmongering nation that has spread itself all over the world, and invited war on its own shores (terrorism). The USG plotting and carrying out 9/11, with the two wars that followed, fits right into this paradigm. The overkill, the evilness, all fits in as well.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
That was certainly an interesting explanation by Ryan. Looking at it on a meta-level, one of the obvious flaws that we see in CT thinking is that they think everything that happened was meant to happen. Its most bizarre form comes when they say "what are the odds that three of the four planes would hit their targets?" as if that was the intended outcome.

There are no random outcomes to the paranoid.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this explanation? I'm more than bit curious.
 
I recall a Stundie nomination one month to the effect that it needed far greater skill than [whichever Arab it was] could have had to fly that plane right into the side of the Pentagon - right into that tiny little hole! (The hole made by the plane itself as it impacted, that is!)

The idea that the pilot's primary aim might have been to hit the compound in the middle of the Pentagon and penetrate where the defences were thinner never seems to enter their heads. But the idea of the plane being unnerringly piloted towards the hole that it had not yet punched in the wall was particularly bizarre.

Anyone got a link to the post?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom