Aaron russo on the 9-11 inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.
WADS...that could catch on. So we reference Coventry as a confirmed WADS, with the rest of this nonsense being labeled as Some People Insanely Think...thus SPIT WADS...
 
Feigned retreat or withdrawl but on the startegic level.

From Wiki

A feigned retreat is a military tactic whereby an army will pretend to withdraw or that they have been routed in order to lure an enemy into a position of vulnerability. Feigned retreats are one of the more difficult tactics for an army to undertake, and require well-disciplined soldiers. This is because if the enemy presses into it, undisciplined troops will lose coherence and the rout will become genuine.[1]

This tactic was well known in antiquity. Herodotus reports that the Spartans employed it at the Battle of Thermopylae to defeat a force of Immortals.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feigned_retreat

But 911 was a strategic victory for AQ
 
This way they could sell dissidents to the West and kill them while they are still in the east.

Yeah that's probably what they had in mind but still there is no guarantee that they would even get cancer or that it would be untreatable, and it might not be noticeable until decades later. Maybe that was the best the GDR could do or maybe at the time they just didn't understand radiation or cancer all that well.
 
Is there a misunderstanding here? There have been assassinations by radioactive isotope injection or ingestion, but cancer wasn't part of the deal. They just hammered in enough radioactive material to flat kill the person with radiation exposure. Still takes a fair time delay, so that by the time anyone is looking for the assassination source they are totally out of the picture (okay, this happened between two and eight weeks ago, where were you during that time?) but it is a can't miss thing once it is done. It's also a very ugly and painful way to go, so if you are trying to "teach dissidents a lesson" there's that.
 
Is there a misunderstanding here? There have been assassinations by radioactive isotope injection or ingestion, but cancer wasn't part of the deal. They just hammered in enough radioactive material to flat kill the person with radiation exposure. Still takes a fair time delay, so that by the time anyone is looking for the assassination source they are totally out of the picture (okay, this happened between two and eight weeks ago, where were you during that time?) but it is a can't miss thing once it is done. It's also a very ugly and painful way to go, so if you are trying to "teach dissidents a lesson" there's that.

The idea was that jailers placed radioactive material in prisoner's cells in the hope that they would develop cancer.
 
The idea was that jailers placed radioactive material in prisoner's cells in the hope that they would develop cancer.

Thin hope. Way too slow and uncertain. Put it in their food. Use the right stuff it ends up in their bones and continues to expose them for years, making bone cancer or leukemia high probability.
 
Aaron Russo was a documentary and film producer who died in 2007. Before his death he disclosed inside information by Nicholas Rockefeller about the attack on 911. Im convinced Russo was telling the truth-

Reflections & Warnings - An Interview with Aaron Russo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSGZ4Hkdyg4

I dont have much doubt 9/11 was orchestrated inside job. Unfortunately an avarege Joe seem to prefere comforting lies instead of waking up to naked reality...
 
And, you, of course, are much smarter than the Average Joe. He's stupid and he can't see the truth.
 
And, you, of course, are much smarter than the Average Joe. He's stupid and he can't see the truth.

To avoid the truth/questioning/doubt is actually smart move in short term. I am just avarage who for some reasons find it less strainful to ask himself unconfortable questions.
 
If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
- Tim Minchin

A lot of people are perfectly comfortable with asking themselves the uncomfortable questions, the difference is that there are people who are willing to believe conspiracy theories without any actual evidence (that can't be debunked by a quick google search) and there are people who actually look at an uncomfortable question and do their best to come to evaluate the evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion.

I personally don't see any evidence that supports this conspiracy theory and the idea that people who come to a different conclusion than you must be (willfully) ignorant of the topic is just silly.
 
If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
- Tim Minchin

A lot of people are perfectly comfortable with asking themselves the uncomfortable questions, the difference is that there are people who are willing to believe conspiracy theories without any actual evidence (that can't be debunked by a quick google search) and there are people who actually look at an uncomfortable question and do their best to come to evaluate the evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion.

I personally don't see any evidence that supports this conspiracy theory and the idea that people who come to a different conclusion than you must be (willfully) ignorant of the topic is just silly.

I am willfully ignorant on many topics. Its something quite natural as our capacity, willingness and willpower are very limited. There is nothing silly about that its just reality and one needs to see and accept that first if he hopes to arrive at insightful conclusions.

There is lot of evidence suported by experts in many fields that 9/11 was indeed a hoax but if you rely on "quick google search" to form your opinions I am afraid you going to find only what you were looking for...

I guess some people are quite willing to believe in Santa Claus in spite of having justifiable doubts about it but hey, it works! and you got your presents every year, so whats the problem, right?
 
There are many experts in many fields that say things that most of their colleges disagree with, yes. Have they brought forward any argument that can't be refuted? Not that I know of and of course you haven't named one either, how convenient.

You're ignoring what most experts have to say and listening to only the people who say what you want to hear. Either way, I know this kind of conversation isn't going to go anywhere, so... that's it for me. Feel free to leave your "Leaving the discussion? Oho, willful ignorance! See! I was right!"-comment.
 
Dude, the WTC buildings were designed to withstand multiply hits by planes. Its you who have to provide evidence of the opposite.

Just watch 20 min. in and tell me these people are ignorant fools or insane manipulators with some twisted agenda:


Link to video.
 
Mechanicalsalvation
Thank you for that interview. Im on the job so Ill try to address earlier responses when I return.
 
Thank you for that interview. Im on the job so Ill try to address earlier responses when I return.

I thank you for bringing up the subject. 9/11 was indeed shocking event but whats at least as much shocking is that people seem to accept or ignore the official ridiculous and absurd explanations.

Something funny but not totally unrelated:
Link to video.
 
Dude, the WTC buildings were designed to withstand multiply hits by planes. Its you who have to provide evidence of the opposite.

There is a saying in engineering to "never trust a truss", which was the floor design of th WTC buildings. Eventually enough pressure built up on the structure that led to a catastrophic failure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom