Gus > my "theorizing" relies on the dozens of footages and pictures of the alleged crashes --and those are FACTS, aren't they?
That's the root of the problem, isn't it? You look at the pictures etc and see no planes. Others look, and see planes. So, is seeing believing or isn't it?
> However, the footages/pics of the WTC "crashes" are doctored/forged/manipulated facts!
That's merely your assertion. You were not in the laboratory, or wherever, when the pictures were being "doctored/forged/manipulated", as you surmise.
> As every expert engineer noticed
Again, your assertion. You didn't count all the engineers who saw the pictures.
> it doesn't make sense for a Boeing airliner to just melt into the WTC at 500 mph like a bullet into a jelly blob....
Ah, the root of the problem! I am not an expert engineer but I am satisfied that the outside wall of the WTC would have presented no resistance to aircraft flying at speed. In the circumstances, I accept that what was shown on the TV, videos and pictures was a genuine collision between an aircraft and the WTC, certainly as far as the South Tower was concerned. In fact, I saw it with my own eyes on CNN as it happened --- but you would then say that CNN had the "doctored" video ready for the event.
> Furthermore, videos and pictures of the exit blasts would have been available for everybody to watch FROM DAY ONE
I repeat, I saw, on CNN, the impact between an aircraft and WTC2 on DAY ONE -- as it happened.
> all in all, the video discrepancies --that is, the poor quality of the forgery/doctoring carried out by US intelligence-- make up the best evidence that no planes were involved.
A tautological argument. You make and assertion and then agree with yourself.
> Another strong argument in favor of my "no planes" theory is that, from its very inception, the terrorist plot against the WTC called for the total destruction of the WTC towers, that is, the planting of mininukes in the towers' basements
I know nothing about a terrorist plot and I'm surprised you do. However, I do accept that the well-published seismological recording does show "events" which coincide with the falling of the buildings and which could be construed as mininuke explosions. On the other hand, I have not heard or read of any evidence for increased radioactivity in the area after the event. So, again, you do not know about nuclear explosions as a fact.
> Hundreds of lawyers, insurance experts, and private investigators hired by the (wealthy) families' victims would have swarmed the area, carrying out their own forensics.... only to find out that nobody was aboard the planes!?!
I do believe there are many cases against the US government. Here's one that I know of:
911forthetruth.com
>>Ellen Mariani filed a civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action lawsuit against President Bush and other high level members of his administration based upon prior knowledge of 9/11; knowingly failing to act, prevent or warn of 911; and the ongoing obstruction of justice by covering up the truth of 9/11; all in violation of the laws of the United States.
Ellen Mariani seeks judicial redress to restore the U.S. Constitution's"Separation of Powers" clause so never again will another "911" occur on our land. We would like to thank all of those individuals whom have signed our petition and/or made a contribution. << |
