Im sure that you understand who benefits from the sales of weaponry. Big money to be made in Weaponry, Oil and Drugs. Not really sure how the muslims have gained in all this. The agenda for a NWO has only gathered more momentum.

I would imagine the principal benficiaries of the sales of weapons are those selling and those buying weapons, not the most complicated scenario! Can't see any connection with 9/11 though. Muslims haven't gained at all in this, they've been the biggest losers. No idea of the agenda you speak of.

if the world is to live in peace,then learn to use your brain speakmaker but relgious don't

Put yourself in Jowenko`s position.

He will have a family to think about.

By the way no mention of Thermite Incendiaries found by Fema in steel samples.

Masher
You quoted Donna Ferentes,(who hasn't even got an entry on Wiki,such is her/his importance)so I went and had a look at her/his top 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists.
On the same page was this:

10 characteristics of DIE HARD SKEPTICS
A useless guide by Donna Ferentes
lampooned by Archangel_woghd

1. Arrogance. They are always grounded in reality and ALREADY KNOW the truth: conspiracy theorists are always "nut cases", or "hippies"

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about how there is no conspiracy no matter how much evidence is piled up in front of them, or how credible the witnesses are. They keep bringing up the same tired "scientific explanations" as if they hadn't already been disproven 1000 times. "Seriously, the UFO was swamp gas."

3.Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise how grounded they are, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions about the gaping holes in their explanations that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include "the photo is too perfect", "the photo is bad quality", "it's been photoshopped", "everyone knows this is BS", "I don't need your facts, I KNOW", "I'll believe it when I see it", "I don't know what we just saw, could have been anything."

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor when it comes to their explanations of paranormal phenomena or conspiracies. Die hard skeptics never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inabilityto be satisfied with good evidence. Die hard skeptics have no place for peer-review, eye witness testimony, for the respectability of sources. Video evidence, audio evidence, radar evidence, paper trails, etc., are never enough, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of killing the messenger. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the conspiracy theorist, even to the point of faking the evidence, all without proof.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a die-hard skeptic admits that they need to adjust their world view. regardless of the mountains of evidence and in-your-face facts. It's easier for them to simply attack the messenger.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Die Hard Skeptics are very keen indeed to declare the perfectly valid evidence totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Phrases like "They said that photo was phoney on the news" and "This isn't proof of anything", especially with particularly damning evidence.

9. Using proven hoaxes as evidence to support their claims. This argument goes something like this: "One alien autopsy video is fake, so they are all fake. One guy admits making crop-circles, so they are all fake. One guy lied about being in a 9/11 cover-up, so they are all lying."

10. It's never a conspiracy. And it never is, is it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, whitewashing the facts, producing fake witnesses, shredding papertrails, planting evidence. It doesn't matter if you find some half-burned passport belonging to a so-called terrorist at ground zero...who turns out later to be ALIVE. Or if the fires could not possibly have burned hot enought to bend steel. Or a single pristine bullet would have had to have taken a very laughable and quite impossible journey to do what it supposedly did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Put yourself in Jowenko`s position.

He will have a family to think about.



I see. So when Jowenko agrees to take part in a TV programme, which he doesn't have to do, he is not afraid for his family.

When he states his opinion that WTC7 ( the one where the CIA had offices[:(] ) was demolished with explosives, he is not afraid for his family.

When he attempts to implicate Larry Silverstein (evil Jew member of Global Elite, (NAP), and Rudi Guiliani (evil Italian-American member of the Global Elite, (NB),

Jowenko: "It strikes me that this could be a reason for Silverstone or -stein — the owner, the owner of the building — to say, “Look, this will cost me a lot of pennies, and what do I get back? The same old building.” And in such a moment, I think that Giuliani easily would give a license to demolish, “Here you are if you want to get rid of it ASAP.”

he is not afraid for his family. But when he states that the Twin Towers were NOT a demolition, you have it that he is afraid for his family.

Excuse me.

yes i now think no planes hit the towers and that the muslims took the blame for their friends Israel and America

The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church for one.


http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=NiQAUTtzTyM&feature=related

did we ever find out how the fbi got to lockerbie before the scottish police


Do you have a source for this or is this just more misinformation they you just naively believe?

Lucky Trifecta Joined: 08 Sep 04
Replies: 57 14 Aug 10 18:38   


Sunset, what other buildings fell on that day?

Care to answer this one?

If you notice in the interview regarding WTC7 Jowenko says "I`m sure in the Journal that it`s been imploded". This to cover his back regarding him saying they where definately controlled demolitions.
Then he contradicts himself a few seconds later and says" as i said before i knew nothing about WTC7" wanting to distance himself from any implicatins, he then comes up with a few theories as to why Larry Silverstein may have ordered the building to be pulled saying 2 it was such a hectic time, in an hour decisions are made that normally would take 5 years"

Once Jowenka realises the implications of his expert opinion, he backs off and tries to offer
some reasoning for it,to have happened.

He would have known not to mess with the official 9/11 Journal which he had obviously seen.

Angel Gabriel Joined: 09 May 05
Replies: 227 15 Aug 10 11:58   


Im sure that you understand who benefits from the sales of weaponry. Big money to be made in Weaponry, Oil and Drugs. Not really sure how the muslims have gained in all this. The agenda for a NWO has only gathered more momentum.



Who started the first and 2nd world wars then? Was it the NWO? There have always been wars and always will be . It's human nature that is the problem. Prove that the NWO control the sale of Weaponry,Oil and drugs?

Sunset
Since 9/11 the Global Elite have gained more influence and control of their own people.
They have gained more influence and control over people in other parts of the world.
They have made lots of money.

masher Joined: 26 May 03
Replies: 78 15 Aug 10 12:40   


From 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes


3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

So I ask you again:

If you value Jowenko's expert opinion, you will agree the Twin Towers were not a demolition, yes?




Good luck with that one masher. They should be politicians because they can't answer a straight forward question.I keep asking them questions and it's mostly followed by a defining silence.

Sorry typo error world wars 1 & 2 lol dont be too critical of my typing

Maybe you should educate yourselves on the Origins of War.

Sunset and Masher

You are obviously blind to the fact The Global Elite benefit from wars. Im sorry but i have young relatives that already know this and are being encouraged to find out more by researching the Origins of War in school debates from Historians who have no Government Agenda. Obviously you Wiki every answer as if you you have been told to. Good Luck but people know what is going on.

Jowenko like many professional people would not want to get too involved in the Twin Tower collapses. He only watched a video to form an opinion and there are no reports of him wanting to find out about nano thermite.

Also when quotin anything from the NIST report, let me remind you of their web address.

Nist.GOV...............do you know what the GOV stands for???[;)]

Angel Gabriel Joined: 09 May 05
Replies: 227 15 Aug 10 17:37   


If you notice in the interview regarding WTC7 Jowenko says "I`m sure in the Journal that it`s been imploded". This to cover his back regarding him saying they where definately controlled demolitions.


What are you trying to say?


Then he contradicts himself a few seconds later and says" as i said before i knew nothing about WTC7"



Correct he is an expert who doesn't know the facts of the case. No wonder he comes to the wrong conclusion.


wanting to distance himself from any implicatins, he then comes up with a few theories as to why Larry Silverstein may have ordered the building to be pulled saying 2 it was such a hectic time, in an hour decisions are made that normally would take 5 years"


What are you trying to say?


Once Jowenka realises the implications of his expert opinion, he backs off and tries to offer
some reasoning for it,to have happened.

He would have known not to mess with the official 9/11 Journal which he had obviously seen.



As usual pure speculation with no evidence to back up your assertions?

what about all the Manned landings they did on the moon,, did they make them all up

ok will do, it's just i have never read about what anyone thinks about the other 5 manned landings they did on the moon they always seem to talk about the 1st one not happpening presumably they think all the others happened