09-09-2011, 05:10 PM
Lemkin...
The *big event* in Toronto is nothing but a repetition of all the other AE911T sponsored events with a few other speakers added and instead of a peanut gallery audience to vote on whether they are convinced of explosive controlled demolition... they have a few professors and academicians who will vote for it... and then AE911T's Gorley who was one of the organizers will write a report declaring the evidence for explosive controlled demolition has passed the *sniff test*. Don't expect a shred of new evidence from Toronto. It's just a well engineered marketing event for a MIHOP explosive controlled demolition theory.
As far as the recent announcement that another big terror attack is in the offing... Why not? Big terror attacks are likely planned by the same people who being us all the false flag attacks and so why not prep us for an other? Can't possible create too much fear in the people.
The two paragraphs seems to reflect mutually exclusive themes. They don't. The truth movement, I believe, has barked up the wrong tree several times in trying to pin down what actually happened on 911. This may seem like a *minor detail* since it likely was a state sponsored false flag operation so the *results" are more important the recipe. Yet I would assert that if you intend to connect the dots and nail the mechanics and then the perps you need to get the story correct about what happened. I don't think Judy Woods' work is credible and neither is Dimitri Khazelov's. However, I also find the work of the group associated with Toronto for the most part... not all of it... sloppy science and does not support their main conclusions about the destruction at the WTC. They say they want a new investigation about what happened, but declare the towers were all destroyed by explosive controlled demolition. If that's the case then why don't they detail how it was done, who did it.. and what were the *explosives* and where were they placed and how were they detonated and so forth. Or is that the subject of the investigation they call for? Don't you think that's a conclusion in search of evidence to support it? And not an investigation of the observables and data to understand what happened?
You tell me.
The *big event* in Toronto is nothing but a repetition of all the other AE911T sponsored events with a few other speakers added and instead of a peanut gallery audience to vote on whether they are convinced of explosive controlled demolition... they have a few professors and academicians who will vote for it... and then AE911T's Gorley who was one of the organizers will write a report declaring the evidence for explosive controlled demolition has passed the *sniff test*. Don't expect a shred of new evidence from Toronto. It's just a well engineered marketing event for a MIHOP explosive controlled demolition theory.
As far as the recent announcement that another big terror attack is in the offing... Why not? Big terror attacks are likely planned by the same people who being us all the false flag attacks and so why not prep us for an other? Can't possible create too much fear in the people.
The two paragraphs seems to reflect mutually exclusive themes. They don't. The truth movement, I believe, has barked up the wrong tree several times in trying to pin down what actually happened on 911. This may seem like a *minor detail* since it likely was a state sponsored false flag operation so the *results" are more important the recipe. Yet I would assert that if you intend to connect the dots and nail the mechanics and then the perps you need to get the story correct about what happened. I don't think Judy Woods' work is credible and neither is Dimitri Khazelov's. However, I also find the work of the group associated with Toronto for the most part... not all of it... sloppy science and does not support their main conclusions about the destruction at the WTC. They say they want a new investigation about what happened, but declare the towers were all destroyed by explosive controlled demolition. If that's the case then why don't they detail how it was done, who did it.. and what were the *explosives* and where were they placed and how were they detonated and so forth. Or is that the subject of the investigation they call for? Don't you think that's a conclusion in search of evidence to support it? And not an investigation of the observables and data to understand what happened?
You tell me.