Ex-CIA agent claims there was controlled demolition on 9-11

If former CIA agents even say that the demolitions on 9-11 were the result of 'controlled' take down, why is it so difficult to believe that this could have (and likely did indeed) happened? This agent claims there is much more about 9-11 that we AREN'T being told (which is my position, and many others positions that we've all been lied to). The agent talks here: http://nodisinfo.com/ex-cia-agent-susan-lindauer-911-lies-bigger-already-known-also-disinformation/

Comments please?

 

she has no actual evidence, just baseless and bigoted speculation.

 

Rumsfeld's testimony confirms HE ALSO lied about 9-11 here: http://www.demonews.org/new-tapes-donald-rumsfeld-lies-about-911and-saddam-hussein/

Are his words just 'baseless and bigoted speculation' as well? Once again, the defense of lies is embraced by those that embrace them (for some strange reason).

The lengths that some go to in order to avoid admitting the truth is astonishing.

 

its amazing how far and for how long folks will go to deny the truth about 9-11.

It was done by Al Qaeda, and apparently funded by Saudi Arabia.

 

The truth has never been told publicly, to the public. That's the problem. Everybody else is somehow lying, and the Kean boys release of disinformation is to be hailed, no matter what. The ignorance continues to be spread.

More confirmation the government has been lying here:http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/gary-north/of-course-the-government-is-lying-about-9-11/

 

You people with believe any nutter story, how sad.

This is your CIA "Agent"

SHE'S A NUT!

 

I might be half interested if she had actually worked for the CIA. Seeing she has not I see no reason to give weight to her claims

 

See "She's a Nut!"

 

I was being polite

 

Exactly how does one explain the total destruction of WTC 1,2 & 7
in as short a time as was done and with total destruction of all three skyscrapers,
could it be .... CONTROLLED DEMOLITION ?

 

Flying aircraft into two of the buildings, then let them fall on the third building

 

So from the chaotic damage caused by an airliner crash, this then is cause
for the very same result as one expects to get from a very carefully engineered event
( That is CD) right?

 

I would much rather you tell me what should have happened if planes hit the two buildings. Everyone is quick to tell me the collapse looked like controlled demolition but in 10 or so years. Not one truther has ever told me what the collapse should have looked like planes hit the buildings

 

Logical fallacy again: it was not the very same result as you would get with CD. You keep repeating this ignorant lie as if you hope it will come true if you spew it enough.
It won't.

 

What other events ( other than very improbable things )
cause the complete & total destruction of a skyscraper?
The airliner crash would have to count as chaotic damage
and from that we get the coherent result of total destruction of the building?

 

Plus the many fires it ignited simultaneously across multiple floors.
Yes, that'll do it.

 

still an assertion that chaotic damage = coherent "collapse"
like that is going to happen.

 

Yet the calculations and physics have shown it to be true. Ready to get back to the thread topic or will you continue to derail?

 

What do you have ROOSD theory? or? how do you get every nut&bolt/weld/rivet (etc... )
to fail exactly on time in sequence to produce the observed result?

 

They didn't: that's a truther fallacy.

 

Then how do you get the result as observed?
if the bits of the building did not fail in sequence,
then the falling bit had the opportunity to tip, and
in so doing would create its own progressive event
down one side of the building leaving the building
damaged but not destroyed.
It would have to be, that all of the connections
within the building failed on-time and in sequence
to produce the result.

 

Not at all: gravity and Newton's laws were quite sufficient.

 

Do you embrace the ROOSD theory of how the towers fell?

note that if one bit of the tower were to give way before all other
bits on the same horizontal plane, the "collapse" event would tip
off center and thereby impose greater strain on the structure on
that side of the building therefore contributing to a progressive failure
that would have the whole thing tipping to eventually dump the mass
of rubble over the side of the tower and thereby stopping the action.

 

Show through mathematical example how this is possible.

Hint: it isn't.

 

you say "it isn't" isn't what? what are you dissing here.

the reasoning is sound and doesn't need tons of math to prove.
the fact is that the building collapse as observed on 9/11
had to have the mass of rubble maintain level, or the whole
thing would tip, and in tipping, the mass would apply greater
stress to the lower side and progressively get lower until the
whole mass of rubble above dumped over the side of the tower
and thus stopped the action. its LOGIC & REASONING.