cherry picking conspiracy theories?

[lucifershammer]

i've spent the past 3 weeks or so tracking down sources that have been cited in books by griffin, and marrs, and fetzer. plus online articles. trying to get back to the original source. spending almost 8 hours a day on weekends, and 3 or 4 on weekdays before work.

and the more i do, the more i realize how cherrypicked they really are.

i watched the dutch program from which danny jowenko is quoted. he's always quoted for his definate claim that building 7 was a controlled demolition. why did no one mention that prior to that in the program, he definitively said that the towers were NOT a controlled demolition?

just curious.

[eternal_spirit]

I have no idea. All I can say is that this subject will be argued for as long as JFK.

[christophera]

i've spent the past 3 weeks or so tracking down sources that have been cited in books by griffin, and marrs, and fetzer. plus online articles. trying to get back to the original source. spending almost 8 hours a day on weekends, and 3 or 4 on weekdays before work.

and the more i do, the more i realize how cherrypicked they really are.

i watched the dutch program from which danny jowenko is quoted. he's always quoted for his definate claim that building 7 was a controlled demolition. why did no one mention that prior to that in the program, he definitively said that the towers were NOT a controlled demolition?

just curious.

Please view my video about the twins,

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition I (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6240504594075547308&q=twin+towers+deception+and+demolition&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition II (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5255701680091399090&q=twin+towers+deception+and+demolition&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

and check my site. The original source is basically images of 9-11, and my memory of the missing documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers."

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

These factors are basically explained. The twins were not only a demolition, they were built to demolish. America has a much bigger problem than it wants to even think about.

free fall (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)
total pulverization (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/collapsed%20to%20dust.mpg)
superfine, heated particulate (http://www.tiny.cc/oonyg)
smooth, square cut column ends x the 1,000's (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearedboxcolumns.gif)
heavy steel assemblies heaved hundreds of feet (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg)

[lucifershammer]

America has a much bigger problem than it wants to even think about.




did you get that quote from somewhere, or is it yours?

[christophera]

did you get that quote from somewhere, or is it yours?

Now it's a quote, since you quoted it.

That was not a quote it was a statement and I just made it. It is VERY true tho.

"America has a much bigger problem that it even wants to think about." But it needs to. America has lost track of the difference between wants and needs.

It is one reason my 9-11 site is in a directory called /psych/. Thinking is a psychological event.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

The reality is that America, and part of the world, is afraid to KNOW how the secrecy used to design and build 2 towers that disintegrate in mid air is created.

[john white]

i've spent the past 3 weeks or so tracking down sources that have been cited in books by griffin, and marrs, and fetzer. plus online articles. trying to get back to the original source. spending almost 8 hours a day on weekends, and 3 or 4 on weekdays before work.

and the more i do, the more i realize how cherrypicked they really are.

i watched the dutch program from which danny jowenko is quoted. he's always quoted for his definate claim that building 7 was a controlled demolition. why did no one mention that prior to that in the program, he definitively said that the towers were NOT a controlled demolition?

just curious.

Whilst a don't disgree with you that all researchers interpret facts and possibilities through their own filters, the fact that jowenko said the towers were not CD is kind of the point. He did not know about building 7, so the truthers interviewing him showed building 7 to him as an example of what CD should look like, he agreed it was a CD, and THEN they hit him with the fact he was looking at a 9/11 event. The subsequent shock reaction was kind of the point, the interviewers got a gut reaction opinion out past Jowenko's own perception filters

Some people (critics mostly) say that was underhand and sneaky. Any they are right. But it was also damn useful

[helloperator]

I have no idea. All I can say is that this subject will be argued for as long as JFK.

And isn't that just sad