Not All Irish Are Handsome or Smart
See how many mistakes you can find in this Irish Denier's campaign advertisement. WTC-7 fell in 6.5 seconds at 5:00 PM? The Gulf of Tonkin Incident took place in 1967 and involved North Vietnamese submarines?
Good thing we've got "Truthers" like this to reveal the secrets!
Labels: Morgan Stack, Political Candidates
posted by Pat @ 6:28 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
HAHAHAHAHA TERRORISM DOESN'T EXIST! COLLAPSED FASTER THAN PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE! I TRUST BIN LADEN! NONE OF HIS TAPES ARE REAL!
What I really want to know is why the spanish faked an attack that LED TO THEM PULLING OUT OF THE IRAQ!
I really wonder how something can collapse faster than physically possible. The statement makes no sense - the speed it collapsed was obviously possible since that's the speed at which it collapsed. It's obviously physically possible because it happened.
Exactly. I can understand people who say "freefall" because that would suggest demolition, but "faster than freefall" is just INSANE.
"Physicians" studied how long it took the towers to collapse. A sharp lad he is.
I find it completely ironic that 9/11 Deniers suggest that if we follow the "official story", we are expected to believe the impossible.
Yet their theories suggest supernatural events occured on that day, such as "The Laws of Physics have been broken" and "It fell faster then freefall"
I heard Rosie used the Tonkin canard too. These guys are just plain morons if they think that "torpedoes = submarines", but even the real Tonkin incident is an inaccurate analogy.
For one thing, the US was rather heavily involved in Vietnam at the time anyway. Second, on the day before the Tonkin incident, supposedly NV patrol boats did indeed fire on the Maddox. Robert MacNamara in Fog of War said they were wrong only on the day of the incident, but that the day prior there was a real attack. Basically they had it switched around.
The reason why this is all irrelevant is because:
1. Nobody(save for the Vietnamese of course) was killed by the attack.
2. It was not necessary for Americans to fire torpedoes at an American vessel in order to use this as a pretext.
It's the same with Pearl Harbor. Whatever you believe about foreknowledge, if you want to compare it to the "inside job" theory of 9-11 you would be suggesting that Pearl Harbor amounted to American pilots in fake Japanese planes, and possibly demolition charges on the ships which sunk or were heavily disabled.
Aside from the planes, the pre-planted charges on ships is far more believable(in a hypothetical way) than the WTC towers being rigged with explosives.
"I really wonder how something can collapse faster than physically possible."
Because all 9/11 Truthers adhere to the dictum of "Impossible, but Plausible."
I'm pretty sure that's a parody.
No one could make that many mistakes.
And yeah, I'm always baffled by the Madrid false-flag claims to.
They staged an attacked that resulted in the fall of an allied government and the withdrawl of Spanish troops? Almost as dumb as staging an attacks to justify the invasion and forgetting to include any links to Iraq!
its all disinfo man...dont trust anyone. Your nextdoor truther neighbour is really a secret agent working for USG man...dont trust them...none of them man....
TAM:):):)
The London bombings were no use either, they just made people more pissed off about the way.
Exactly. I can understand people who say "freefall" because that would suggest demolition, but "faster than freefall" is just INSANE.
Many terrorist supporters seek to spread the impression that there is a method of controlled demolition which creates a "suction" inside the building which pulls (heh) the building down more quickly than gravity alone can manage.
Yeah, they think that a controlled implosion means the use of implosives.
Post a Comment
<< Home