9/11 Weekend - New hypothesis to Explain 9/11 - Part I

[Peter Lemkin]

Good luck, Peter. Just remember, Orling views himself as the skeptic who uses sound science as opposed to everyone here (and he says he is well aware of our position) as ideologues. He is really good at using the "rope-a-dope" to wear down any opponent. He is here to "inform," never to learn -- ever. I am sure you are aware of this. Just reminding you what you are up against.
:rocker:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1y_lpiGg...re=related

What I'm 'up against' is a Colbyesque [EF] clone and the comparison is very apt. I believe the two may have the same agenda, and perhaps more...... Its bullshit anyway one looks at it...the 'lets look and think cautiously' is just the voice of those who pulled of the deed via their propaganda and spin divisions [or at best cheerleaders]. AE-911Truth got rid of him, and this Forum needs to consider if he deserves some review here too, IMHO.

His stance is clever...but doesn't fool me one bit and didn't from his first post! He is pro official version, while hiding under the skirts of his 'zipper theory'....which holds no water and less molten steel! [or pulvarized dust; flying beams, etc.] IMO, he's either an oppoligist or agent for the Big Lie of 911 or someone who never learned any science or engineering while completing an architecture degree. Let each decide for themselves. I'm not one little bit afraid of his voodoo 'science'.