>
> I agree with alex here.
> To just step in front of a camera and say "no planehit the towers" would be idiotic. But if someone would care to presentan hardhitting and easy-to-understand overview of the argument, itwould be a totally different case.
>
> Personally I would avoid terms like butterplanes andwhatitz, since my PERSONAL experience is, that these terms make peopleNOT want to look at the evidence, just like screaming IDIOT at someone,probably isn´t the best way to make them consider your point, but Iguess this is a matter of taste?
>
> Best,
> Peter Kofod, Denmark
>
> alexldent <alexldent@...> skrev:
> Obviously I'm not Rosalee, and you asked her-- but, I wouldn't mind if
> he did this and backed it up with a proper analysis. If you just SAY
> that "there was no plane crash and that the planes hitting the towers
> were faked" of course it sounds crazy. But if one presented it
> properly, I think it could be a very effective argument. The more I
> look at these pictures of the WTC and the planes and then the
> plane-shaped holes, the more bogus it looks.
>
> The truth is the truth, and I don't like the idea of hiding the truth,
> no matter how crazy it might initially sound.
>
> > Do you really want Professor Jones to
> > go on national TV and say that there was no plane crash and that the
> > planes hitting the towers were faked and edited in later on
> > videotape? What praytell would be the result of him taking that
> > action? What good would it do our truth movement if people of Jones
> > stature started doing things like that?
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Governmentprocurement Government leasing Governmentgrants for women Government lease Government contract Government money
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
We may have such a presentation available soon. I have been working ona 9/11 presentation, for more than 2 years, that exclusively covers theno-plane "theory". Thus far I have been able to show parts of it to people that were believers of the Official Fairy Tale and to date NOT one person that I went over the material with disagreed with my perspective afterwards. 100% conversion rate. Keep in mind this was done on a one-on-one basis with people that know me, but the results are encouraging.
In the coming weeks (hopefully by April) I will make the presentationavailable for others to review, debunk, toss out the window, etc.
For now, I will give you the title of the presentation:
9/11:
Collusion
Illusion
Delusion.
Collusion
Illusion
Delusion.
Collusion is the planning of 9/11 (including memes for alternative scenarios).
Illusion is the actual attack and coverage.
Delusion is the inability of the public to see through the deception.
FWIW, back in December 2001, I aired my perspective about no-planes to several friends, it sailed about as smooth as the Titanic. Many of those people would not even speak to me for several months afterwards,a couple still won't (and refuse to hear my presentation as well), but the rest have since become convinced that the no-plane perspective is closer to what really occurred that morning than any other analysis.
SPONSORED LINKS
| Government procurement | Government leasing | Government grants for women |
| Government lease | Government contract | Government money |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
No comments:
Post a Comment