When the subject is video-fakery, it's always going to be difficult to
ascertain who is telling the truth. You'd need all the original footage to
check against etc etc, correct? But it does make some very good points yes.
If you put yourself in the shoes of the plotters, as they were finalizing
the 9-11 plot, is it not plausible that for the last bastion of deceit, as
the final "firewall" of protection to prevent the truth from being accepted
by ordinary folk... they decided to carry out the attack on the towers in
such a manner that were the truth about how they did it, discovered, no-one
(very few) would believe it?
They made sure we all "saw" the planes going into the towers. Over and over
and over. Perhaps there was another reason for this, besides the "shock and
awe" motive. To make sure any truth-seekers who stumbled upon the truth
(missiles?) would have a tremendously hard job of convincing others this was
how they did it. They would know, that honest truth-seekers, once these knew
it was missiles (if indeed that was the case), would not continue to promote
the lie that it was planes. And in so doing, the truth would work against
them (or so they would believe).
Because, of course, "everyone" saw the planes crashing into the towers.
To me, that's how these people would think. Whether they actually did this
or not, I do not know. But that docu sure is food for thought.
Remaining open-minded about this,
LLTF,
Danny.
My reply to Danny:
Or you'd need to be there on the place.
You theory below [above, about the reason] sounds interesting. I wouldn't wonder if they by now
have precise statistics and computer programs on how humans react and
how to best manipulate people.
Perhaps the main reason to use a missile instead of a plane was that the
plane would practically just crumple against the tower sand most of it
would hang/fall out on the other side and not cause the desired huge
fireball explosion that would give the viewer the impression that this
then caused the collapses.
The list of witnesses, most being MSM people is also very suspect. If
they are lying then I wonder what freemasonic-like oaths they've taken.
BTW, since the commenting is working quite well on 100777.com I could do
something to enliven it even more, perhaps have a few regulars giving
insights and help with moderation.
'If America cleaned itself of all the filth and set an example by keeping The Covenant then the Moslems would keep it too and there would be no conflict, as I told Clinton and the UN and other leaders years ago. No--one listens and so billions will die'
Commentary
Commentary from Danny
Thank-you for your reply Staffan.
When the subject is video-fakery, it's always going to be difficult to ascertain who is telling the truth. You'd need all the original footage to check against etc etc, correct? But it does make some very good points yes.
If you put yourself in the shoes of the plotters, as they were finalizing the 9-11 plot, is it not plausible that for the last bastion of deceit, as the final "firewall" of protection to prevent the truth from being accepted by ordinary folk... they decided to carry out the attack on the towers in such a manner that were the truth about how they did it, discovered, no-one (very few) would believe it?
They made sure we all "saw" the planes going into the towers. Over and over and over. Perhaps there was another reason for this, besides the "shock and awe" motive. To make sure any truth-seekers who stumbled upon the truth (missiles?) would have a tremendously hard job of convincing others this was how they did it. They would know, that honest truth-seekers, once these knew it was missiles (if indeed that was the case), would not continue to promote the lie that it was planes. And in so doing, the truth would work against them (or so they would believe).
Because, of course, "everyone" saw the planes crashing into the towers.
To me, that's how these people would think. Whether they actually did this or not, I do not know. But that docu sure is food for thought.
Remaining open-minded about this,
LLTF,
Danny.
My reply to Danny: