FREEDOM FORUM: Discussion

Make a Comment

Comments in Response


Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

That is what did it for me...the physics only add up to an inside job.  Only.  Take your pick; Building 7, either tower, the Pentagon.  Even flight 93 is BS.


Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

 

Conspiracy Theories that never run dry.

My driver -- a well-read man whose obsession focuses on the Science of Speculative Metaphysics -- has also a Conspiracy Theory that answers the question why Barack Obama won when he ran for president in 2008. Like Podolsky he examined the facts: [A] that he is black and 80-90% of the entire white population didn’t like a Black President; [B] he is not even a natural-born American citizen [the birth certificate pain in the neck].. His conclusion was also like that of Podolsky’s 911 Conspiracy Theory, that it was "indeed an ‘inside job’, perpetrated by members of our government."

"Who do you think is the most powerful head of those conspiracies?" he asked me. My answer was always consistent – The AntiChrist that calls the shot in the Government.

The mathematical equation used was ConT = AC. ConT is Conspiracy Theory. AC is AntiChrist. There are more. And the main characteristic of the Equation is that conspiracies are limitless, and as cheap as the air we breathe.

 

Comment by GrandPoobah
Entered on:

Here is some relevant information: . Where the author states ... well let me just quote: My career experience is not particularly distinguished. I spent ten years doing mathematical physics and systems analysis in industry and government. Then I spent twenty-five years doing psychotherapy in private practice.

Maybe somewhere along the way he had a cerebral vascular accident and his memory is not what is used to be. That would also explain his really poor analysis of almost everything else in his article. Remember all those pictures of glowing metal the conspiracy theorists post? Metal that color has already lost over 50% of its structural strength. I could go on, pointing out how every single point that this person makes is not supported by any evidence, is contradicted by other parts of the paper, or is just plain wrong. All of this would be a waste time.

Comment by Venancio Tan
Entered on:

Okay, grandpooh. My 911 Conspiracy Theory agrees with yours that you are 100% right about this guy who did the pee-sick!


Comment by Olde Reb
Entered on:

 In my opinion, there is more than sufficient evidence that the "official" report of destruction is a pack of lies.  The question that remains is "Who or what had the resources necessary to pull off the destruction, cover up all of the conflicting evidence, squelch all dissenting reports, and benefit from the event?"

Where is the central control ??   Try http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/081343-2011-01-03-cia-rogue-agency-run-amuck.htm

Revisionist history confirms Tonkin Bay was a lie to escalate the war in Vietnam, the Pearl Harbor attack was known months in advance, the Lusitania was carrying 500 tons of military explosives-was fair target for attack and was set up to get into WW I, Korea police action was based upon lies, Bosnia was based upon lies, Iraq, Afghan, Pak, Libya, have been based upon lies, etc.....  How long will the people allow themselves to be lied to so the beneficiaries of war-mongering can profit ???


Comment by Eric Hall
Entered on:

Grand Poobah #16106 In your comment you contradicted yourself. You admit that the structural steel was glowing, indicating it had lost up to 50 percent of its structural strength. Yet that conceivably did not occur due to burning jet fuel. It does not add up. You cannot have it both ways. Also, 90 percent of the concrete in the building pulverized is the result of the explosions heard by several witnesses, not burning jet fuel. And of course, you resort to the classical ad hominem attack by insulting the author of the article to deflect from the lack of your own argument.

Make a Comment