View Single Post
Old 21-07-2013, 10:40 PM   #39
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)

Originally Posted by cousin_frothy View Post
Well are you judging the whole 'conspiracy' based on the drills, I mean if the drills were not at those times, would you be stating that the official report is correct?
The one thing about this whole 9/11 event that appears to get over looked quite often is that, yes your analysis in the absence of 100% proof seems logical, If we're to use logic, where proof is lacking, and treat the most logical result as if it were proof, then we have to use the same logic for everything that lacks proof in relation to 9/11. I hope you agree.

So a logical conclusion is that people would work out it's an inside job.
In such case where is the logic of the conspirators, when they create a false flag event, and indeed do have drills, as the drills are likely to attract the attention of the investigator, thus being illogical.

Imo the drills and the event have been tied together this way to keep people off track. There is also debate about flight paths, tracking radar

Again it causes debate.
Debating drills and radar tracking.

It seems to me that all this is a side issue. What really happened on 9/11 is that some type of weapon/technology was disclosed to the world.

The aeroplanes were meant to divert the eye of the public, make no mistake the US showed one of their cards.
You've probably guessed that I'm in the Judy Wood camp on this subject, Bin Laden's 'Punch & Judy' show is distraction.
Something charred cars that were parked half a mile away, not heat, if it were heat people and other objects would have been charred/scolded/burned also. . . There sure is more to this than meets the eye.
I rather think a logical conclusion is that US ops wanted to demolish the WTC's anyway, they wanted to try out their new technology on that. . And the aeroplanes (including drills) were supplementary agendas that were attached politically to gain in the middle east region and to conceal their real drill.
They`re murderers and thieves, not geniuses. If the drills had been a major issue in the MSM or in the debunker crowd I would agree with you and think it`d be really suspicious, but it isn`t. Apart from a very few early media reports like the ones I linked to they have hardly been mentioned at all, so it`s not as if this is something that`s been added to the narrative to cause discussion. It hasn`t caused any discussion. What settles it for me is that all "terrorist" attacks are accompanied by drills and you can look into them all one by one and you`ll find matching drills going on at the same time or in the case of Oslo in 2011 the morning before the event. Since 9/11 is an obvious false flag whichever way you approach it you would therefore expect to find drills going on and indeed there were. This is the final evidence needed when you come from the forensic angle and have seen all the suspicious stuff in New York and the Pentagon, because if you didn`t find drills there would be some chance it was a genuine "terrorist" attack, if such a thing even exists. That is why I consider the drills the proof of inside job; the final piece of the puzzle that moves it beyond doubt.
As for Wood and her claims I have no way to prove or disprove them, and although it`s possible she`s right I need some evidence that`s not ambiguous. Nano thermite produces rust and molten iron as its main byproduct. There was rust on the vehicles you mentioned and molten iron in the basement. There`s nothing there that disproves the hypothesis that nano thermite was used to demolish the towers. In fact, more or less all the evidence available supports this.

Last edited by skulb; 22-07-2013 at 01:31 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote