wake_up_bomb wrote: I'd disagree with that fundamental point you make there i'd say more conclusive evidence comes from media footage and underwriters labs etc, I don't completely accept the NIST version could you provide a link to these damning internet conclusions?

.......... wrote: Yeah he could implement them like JFK or even more immediately, how'dya think that'd work out?

You're not alone by the way, and because you're not aware of WUB's particular CT doctrine doesn't make you "stupid" imo.

pheony wrote: wow i'm really offended by that, sorry but you can't just imply somebody who's just lost a child is psychotic or an actor or whatever bullshit you were insinuating.

Guevarista wrote: You're welcome to your opinion. I have a completely different one. I don't think there is much to be gained by debating 9/11 at this point in time.

wake_up_bomb wrote: I agree with that totally

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Then what's to be gained by debating any other conspiracy related material about tptb? (honest question)

.......... wrote: I generally don't discuss 'conspiracies'. I generally stick to stuff that can be proven 100% by facts and evidence. In the case of 9/11, I have made an exception because I feel the official version is so obviously farcical. This is not merely based on my opinion, it is also based on the opinion of air-traffic controllers and pilots who I know personally and have spoken to about it. I also think it is worth looking at because the consequences of 9/11 are so profound.

However, many people disagree with me, and there is nothing to be gained by discussing the matter any further, particularly as it happened eleven years ago. There is never going to be another investigation, despite the deeply inadequate nature of the one that has taken place. It's much more productive to look at corruption that can be 100% proven, which 9/11 cannot, at least partly due to the fact that a lot of the evidence was systematically suppressed.

so now on the internet people think these children did not die.........and they have all been invented by the Powers that Be . And it's all one big pantomime?

In a way it makes it makes me anoyed

and bringing 9/11 into this is

a) a bit off topic

and

b) a bit off topic

Which one is not real?

i't makes you bang your head against a wall when people are saying thes children did not exist and it''s all a a big sham by the PTB

.......... wrote:
One thing I'd like to know is why people are in a debate, arguing against there being a debate. If you don't want to discuss it, why are you posting in the thread? Or do you think that you can tell others what they should be allowed to discuss? Then maybe, every single thread on the entire forum can be about the queen and the fuck-head pastor!

Then we've Gue, who in between posting Benny Hill vids & questions about my husband, wants to divert the conversation to cover anything except the actual discrepancies is the official story, which he's characteristically avoided.

The people on SZ seem to love their trolls!

No Dawn - I've not seen anywhere where people are saying these children don't exist, except for a comment that a lot of people seem to think (elsewhere) that Emily didn't - that's the daughter of Mr Parker - he's the one having a jolly good laugh, and then asking if he should just read off the card, prior to making himself weep for an interview.

It's something I initially didn't look at, thinking it silly, but brought up because of that photo in the paper of the family prior to the tragedy, which actually is photo shopped by the looks of it. It's something I'd want to look further into after seeing that pic, to decide whether it's a one-off and my initial instinct was correct, or whether there might be something in it. This has already been stated.

Don't have time for a couple of days, but if anyone else can add anything on that, it would be good.

Those photos above look real to me. I don't think they look fake,, but it would take someone with the facility & know how to check, which I don't have. (The one in the paper also didn't strike me as fake at first tbh). When I've time, I'll scout about, because there's likely to be someone on the net who has that facility who has covered it. I'd like to know for sure whether it's crap or legit.

There are so many theories out there, that I think it best to properly eliminate ones that are just muddying the water, so that we can see what's left. That seems logical to me, even though there are evidently people who don't agree, and are quite determined that the entire subject should be taken at face value & ignored.

I spotted a bit of a character assassination attempt by you, i-baster, directed at myself when I was scanning through. Can't find it now I wish to address is. Have you edited it out?

I'm finding it very odd that so much of the content here is made up of people being made to feel the need to write essays to justify why they think the topic needs looking at. Very fucking odd!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Not to mention sent off on a slow-boat to China.

Literally. Giuliani tampered with some major pieces of evidence when he had all that fallen steel loaded onto a boat and sent off to China. How did people see that as OK? When you fuck with a crime scene and try to get rid of "Exhibit A" most people would call for your arrest. Not this guy, they praised him as a hero because he got on TV and talked some "real nice words" out to the viewing public. It's like most Americans are completely hypnotized just by certain peoples positions in life. "Oh, he's a governor/senator/mayor/blah-blah, he'd never be on the dirty end of some kind of massive conspiratorial cover-up!! He's got grand-kids for Christ's sake!!!"

dawnbreak wrote:
Not really. Totally within bounds in referencing similar scenarios such as holes in stories regarding official reports having consistently conflicting information. It's a valid and topically-related point.

Sorry Dawn, objection overruled!!

.......... wrote:
Yes there can be dis info out there. But you are making a huge sweeping generalisation about all posters on the DIF, which to me is at the least highly ambitious of you. There is a wide variety of opinions there on these subjects.

there are always multiple possibilites for any scenario...i dont need to go quoting socrates now but my homeboy knew the deal in his quotes about what we know and dont know.

now..how about one possible scenario...all victims are real, but the event was carried out for reasons other than what we are told...i dont give a fuck about what any of the reuters and assoc press apologists say here or anywhere else. What i just said..well to me ts plausible.

ive been following rahm emmanuel and the gun thing for years. Ive seen similar unfold here after a supposedly autistic millionaire turned into a skilled green beret for a day.

"oh but the government or shadow agencies would never do anything like that" ...well anyone with more than a double digit IQ can see what they are capable of abroad, right? Want me to drag out images of kids in Iraq, afghanistan, and so on. How about vietnam? Japan? How about nuclear testing on aboriginal grounds in Australia next to communities where kids are being raised.

But they would never do anything like that to get to where they want to be, would they now. Im sure the thought has never even crossed their mind, they are nice people after all. They all have a great smile and the people love them and vote for them.

When you see governments making laws about convicting people for questioning events online...well ask your self why? Is it because they fear it will unsettle 'democracy' ?? lmao.

That particular point above about censoring opinion reminds me of the one million dollar fine business can get in australia if they question the Goldman Sachs and NM Rothschild bank carbon tax. ...meanwhile the same people sell carbon credits and have oil operations on the go, money pouring in from both sides.

Ok now, who would stop the trolltrain on this thread?

I had a decent read here, not counting the last... umm... five pages or what?

I don't think I did any character assassinating of anybody. I am sorry if you took anything I said personally. I have not edited anything in order to remove things I have said either.


There are quite a few photos of the three girls together, I got those from Robbie Parker's Facebook. It seems some of his stuff at least is public. You can scan his friends list and see family and friends expressing their support. If anything about the Parker's is fake I am not seeing it.

I think I can accept him smiling at the wrong moment because I could see myself doing something like that. I am not good at emotion. I think it is unfair to scrutinize every little thing a grieving father does in such a way too.

You dismiss the father as "having a good old laugh" and this makes it clear that you think he is fake in some way. Now I know you hold this theory but what if you are wrong? Then you are assassinating the character of a grieving father. I don't say this to tell you what to discuss or to assassinate your character but it does not seem like a right way to conduct yourself to me.

i-baster wrote:
So, no attempt to address this then...
Gilly wrote:
...or the fact that plenty of people here reacted with complete and passionate disbelief that everyone would go along with not seeing their little ones in the flesh - because in their shoes, some of us would have barristers and pathologists brought in.

i-baster wrote:
Yes, I do tend to take it personally when people compare me to a sly fox etc etc. Rather let your true colours show!

You also made some inaccurate remark about it being me who claimed the children weren't real.

Bollocks! I saw it, and it was personal, so it's either still here & I've missed it, or you're a bare faced liar and you've edited it out.

When I get the time to look through in detail, I'll be checking the editing times on your posts too, in case you now go back & edit again to make it look like you said something similar but innocent that could have been misconstrued.

It wasn't ambiguous.

Re the 'grieving father' Parker. I'm not convinced he's for real and I'm more concerned about the actual fate that befell those children.

I never called you a sly fox. I am not a liar either.

As for your issue regarding the identification of bodies that was not my decision to make so I can't tell you I just offered my opinion on a possible reason. As for the ME I would suggest that either he has not been briefed on whether the sheriff or whoever want that info released to public or possibly he had a freeze up that you often see in nervous people. There are any number of possible scenarios. The ar15 can mess up a face without being close range I would imagine and also as he states he was not finished and only dealt with 7.

It is also possible that some parents were allowed to see their children but the sheriff department didn't want the other parents finding out. The decision to show bodies via photo does seem like a good idea for the parents although of course I understand some people want to see the body in person. I also understand why they might not want that. They probably lacked staff to clean up the corpses to make them less disturbing too. The smell etc would add to the traumatic experience. Plus simply the large number to deal with. It could be something sinister but there are also much more likely logical answers.