Thursday, November 14, 2013

I've been debating this for several years.

Representative Press ☞1 second ago (edited) +Sir Daniel Nonfaultson said, "I've been debating this for several years." I reply: Then why can't you answer what I asked you? How do you rationalize thinking the Mossad would think it necessary to get a second rate pictures or video of the attack from across the river? What possible purpose would the pictures serve? You don't grasp how immature those Israelis were and how recklessly jubilant they were that they stood out as strange? As I pointed out, the source for the claims that they were there before the first impact does not say that!

+Sir Daniel Nonfaultson said,"Whether they were filming after the attack or before, I don't care, it's not relevant."

I reply:  So when a point is debunked, it then is no longer relevant huh? Richard Gage plays that same game, when they sat him down along with David Ray Griffin and Dylan Avery and showed they fires CAN weaken steel, Nat Geo sat those top gurus down and showed them an experiment where a steel beam failed and collapses due to being weakened by a fire, Richard Gage then declares it is "irrelevant" that fires can do that to steel. You really need to understand that what is called "9/11 Truth" is the Zionist misdirection. And I show exactly how the first seeds were planted by a guy who refused to read the word "Israel" on live TV and then became irrational fixated on a building with no relevance which collapsed many hours later after hours of predictions from firemen saying it would. It is freakin' retarded to even think WTC7 was a target! The attack was to terrorize the public into forcing a policy change to stop support of Israel and other oppressive regimes. What the hell would an unknown building collapsing late in the afternoon have to do with anything? Even if you want to believe that "the government wanted to trick the public into thinking they were attacked by Arabs in order to get us into more wars," what the freakin' hell would an unknown building collapsing in the late afternoon have to do with any of that? The only reason you guys rationalize WTC7 as a target is because it collapsed and for so reason you had fallen for Eric Hufschmid IGNORANT declaration that fires can't cause a steel structure to collapse and he based his conclusion on the melting point of steel without understanding that the steel doesn't have to melt, only weaken! Then selfish and greedy con men entered jumped on board and continued with the BS.

I expose Richard Gage here AND I also show how the 9/11 Commission suppressed mention of Israel to a very large degree, they downplayed the main motive for the attack to an extreme degree. I show how the staff statements had several mentions of Israel, BUT by the time they made it to the 9/11 Report, MANY of the mentions of Israel were omitted. How much clearer do I have to make it? Look at Gage in action, CLICK HERE: See Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"? Show less

No comments: