DownWithTheIlluminati

What's funny? Specifics please.

"The human mind is like a computer. No matter how efficient it may be, it's reliability is only as great as the information fed into it. If it is possible to control the imput of the human mind, then no matter how intelligent a person may be, it's entirely possible to program what he will think. And yes, it's even possible to program people to laugh at the mere mention of the word 'conspiracy'" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=35...95251&hl=en (1:44:59-1:45:26)

Why wonder about my motives for being here instead of looking at the matters discussed in the topic.. ones that affect you and everyone else in the world. Building 7 matched all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Indira Singh, a Ground Zero emergency worker, was told by the Fire Department that it was going to be 'brought down'. Eyewitnesses reported explosions prior, immediately prior, and during the collapse. Three explosions inside Building 7 were caught on tape. One explosion was caught on tape 9.5 seconds before the collapse and two others occurred during the beginning of the collapse. The case for demolition appears to be iron-clad. 1) Yeah, it wouldn't look suspicious to go around censoring all videos that expose corruption. 2) It isn't 'insanely difficult'. This type of 'shadow' activity is 100% documented. Um.. No. Not only were they dressed as Arabs. They were shooting police and had a vehicle packed with explosives. That's not 'infiltration'. That's a plan for the terrorist attack. Question: Did you even read the Michael Keef article I linked you to, which has sources/references that proves that terrorism is staged in Iraq conclusively?

It's already revealed. Didn't you watch the videos? There's no refuting it. Fluoride is harmful. Plain and simple. I'm not 'coming up' with any of this. There is documentation/evidence behind everything I'm saying, as you saw when I proved that the SAS actually were involved in staging terrorism and that they were caught doing it. I wouldn't use something to support what I was saying unless it was backed up by the facts. If it's alleged, I'll say it's alleged. If it's a fact, then I'll say it's a fact.

Fluoridation of the water exists. Watch and learn: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RXWwd0AdG40 New Research: Fluoride Damages Children's Liver and Kidneys (NYSCOF) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/Augus...806Fluoride.htm

Because once you accept that the September 11 attacks are a conspiracy, you start opening your mind to the possibility of 'Conspiracy', and start questioning other events. ..Then you find the incredible amount of evidence that the London Bombings, the WTC93 bombing, the Kennedy assassinations, and many other crimes were also conspiracies. Once you accept that we live in a conspiratorial world, you have to start questioning everything. Terrorism is the New World Order's favorite tactic. The recent Mumbai attacks? They were a covert, black operation carried out by operatives in Indian/British/American/Israeli intelligence. The motive was to use India as a proxy to further destabilize Pakistan. People need to start questioning EVERYTHING.

No, the onus of proof is not on me. The burden of proof starts off on me, but once I provide my argument, it's up to my opponent (you) to destroy it by showing me how 'basic science/physics' refutes the points (the points, not the conclusion) and it's up to you to provide plausible alternative explanations. 1) Several floors down? That's quite easy. If there was tons of debris falling below the collapse wave, then more would be visible than just a few squibs. If it was just a bit of debris, then there would not be concrete spraying out. It's quite simple, really. Air compression isn't going to happen if there is nothing compressing the air. 2) First of all, the fires were local and the impact area's fires were not even that hot. Even so, it wouldn't matter if the whole friggin building was on fire. Why are detonation sounds going off that match high-velocity explosive detonation sounds when put to the comparison test? 3) Witnesses who reported explosions during the collapse are important because they themselves interpreted elements of the collapse as explosions. What about the witnesses to explosions prior to the collapse? What about the witnesses to low level explosions prior to the collapse. 4) Watch "911 Eyewitness". The movie features the footage of Rick Siegel, who caught explosions on tape prior to the collapses. Do you think that an elevator falling would be enough to rapidly cause large amounts of white smoke to be produced from the base? 5) Stephen Gregory, the FDNY Assistant Commissioner, was standing with Lieutenant Evangelista when he saw a series of flashes on the lower levels just before the building came down. How could these be caused by the collapse? 6) It doesn't matter. Floors collapsing isn't going to throw steel beams hundreds of feet outward. Come on. 7) First off, the Pancake Theory has been debunked. Second, for the buildings to collapse as fast as they did, hundreds of steel supports would have had to have been being destroyed rapidly. These buildings were redundant. Third, what about Building 7? It fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds? You expected a steel skyscraper to collapse faster than the speed of gravity because of "structural failure"? The total collapse took under 7 seconds in total! As David Ray Griffin says, try dropping a block of concrete from a thousand feet height. You're not going to see it pulverize itself into very fine dust. 9) Do you want me to go into detail and prove it again? It fell straight-down. It fell rapidly (100 meters in 4.5 seconds, total collapse in 7.5 seconds). It fell nearly symmetrically. There was 'kink' in the center. The exterior walls were pulled towards it's central axis. It produced massive amounts of pulverized, fine concrete dust at it's base. It fell almost entirely into it's own footprint (Accidents don't do that.. demolition teams have to work weeks to get a building to fall like that). It's collapse was preceded by an explosion that one witness described as a 'clap of thunder'-like sound. Numerous 'booms' occurred during it's collapse, according to former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer. Clearly you missed what I said about: 1) The spooks (CIA, MI6, Mossad) being at the top of organizing staged terrorism. 2) Only small, covert, 'black-ops' sections of the military being involved in staging terroris Yeah, some of the terrorism was staged by elements of the British Army and intelligence community. You can keep giving me emotional responses, saying 'my theory fails, etc., but you're wrong. That's a fact. I provided you with a documented incident in which two SAS guys were caught trying to stage a terrorist attack. They were arrested and then the British Army committed a crime by breaking them out. You obviously haven't read the Keefer article I linked you to, which proves that elements of the US/UK forces are staging terror. It's also funny that you baselessly deny what I'm saying, despite the fact that history backs it up. 1) 'My' scientific errors? Point'em out, please. The burden of proof is on YOU when you make accusations against someone. 2) I have the burden of proof, yes, I never denied that, but once I make my case, the ball is thrown to you guys. 3) Your friend who oversimplifies the situation because he obviously hasn't looked into it beyond his face-value, knee-jerk response to it? 4) Over 600 experts matter, obviously. 5) History shows us that many times mainstream science is wrong and the experts that disputed it are right. Once again, 600+ experts matters. There are 600+ who have done their research into this subject. You have one guy who obviously hasn't done any research, based on the total, knee-jerk response you told me about when you asked them about 911. Was it a typo on your part, or did they actually say that 'two planes hit one building'? 1) Larry Silverstein was involved, in my opinion. He leased the buildings 7 weeks prior to the attack, bought a massive insurance policy, and, he wasn't in his office in the Towers when the attack happened because of a 'coincidental' appointment with the Dentist. Lucky guy, eh? His luck doesn't end there. It just so happens that his children weren't in their offices either, as they were 'running late'. Obviously, though, you can't have a perp without connections. Hard to picture some landlord guy agreeing to this. Turns out he wasn't without ties, after all. He was a friend of three former Israeli Prime Ministers and Ariel Sharon, who was, of course, the Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the attacks. Guess what? He spoke to former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu every Sunday over the phone. Larry was tight with the political elite in Israel. 2) The firefighters died because they went into a building that was being blown up by these criminals. They didn't care about the people in the Pentagon/WTC, so why would they care about the firefighters? 3) Yes, Mossad was involved. This "War On Terror" is being staged by CIA, MI6, Mossad, and some of their buddies (ISI, IB, CSIS). In fact, there is evidence of direct Mossad connections to the September 11 attacks. Five men were arrested in New York that day. They had a white van and were seen 'dressed as Palestinians', according to the caller who alerted the police to fact of their existence. The police found out that they weren't Arabs after all, but they were Israelis! Some of them were found to be connected to Mossad! When they were apprehended, one of them said "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.". A massive Israeli Spy Ring existed in the US prior to 9-11 that was suspiciously close to the alleged hijackers on many occassions. Nope. See, I can take people disagreeing. I just carry on a civil discussion.. But it's weak, immature jabs like this.. That, that I can't stands. That's why I'm going to stop being nice to you and tell it like it is: You are a victim of the media's programming. Everyone is programmed by the media (Cartoons, News, Comedy skits, etc.) to believe that the idea of "Conspiracy Theory" should automatically be associated with tinfoil hats, moonbats, and loons. You, "Gorgon", are a victim of that programming. I am not angry at you. I am angry at the media for doing this to you and so many others. I only ask you to start thinking outside of this programming like I started doing at a young age.

You didn't even refute anything I said or respond to it in a civil manner! Geeeeez! Sorry, that's the kind of thing you need to provide evidence for. And since over 600 experts disagree with the official version, why should we give all our credibility to military/government-linked agencies like NIST? You can't say I made 9 scientific mistakes without proving it. A long time ago, there were a smaller percentage of people saying that the earth was round. If you don't like that example, just think of all the times when mainstream science have proved to be wrong. The fact is, there are over 600 experts who doubt the official version. That's a lot. Actually, it was quite easy for them. Shanksville was an area with close ties to the military and anti-terrorism authorities. After the event, the site was blocked off and it appears that evidence was planted.

Operation: London Bombings Date: 7-7-05 Motive: Galvanize support for the Iraq war and unite people behind government anti-terror measures Patsies: Hasib Hussain, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Germaine Lindsay and Shehzad Tanweer Agencies involved: MI6, CIA, Mossad, MI5, Scotland Yard EVIDENCE: -The explosive used in the London attack were military-grade. Christophe Chaboud, France's new anti-terrorism coordinator, 'leaked' this fact, when he said "How did they get them? Either by trafficking, for example, in the Balkans, or they had someone on the inside who enabled them to get them out of a military base.". If this was inside knowledge and Chaboud leaked it, then why was the story later that "homemade explosives" were used? http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/french...-bomb-plot.html -Scotland Yard had warnings of a bombing that day, as one report stated. Why, then, did they, for over an hour and a half, claim that the blasts were caused by a 'power surge'? http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/Jul05...eliNN_large.jpg -The police rerouted the No.30 bus that was bombed to Tavistock Square (It's original destination was Marble Arch). Out of all of the buses that day, it was the only bus that the police specially re-routed to a different location. http://www.tribune.ie/article/2005/jul/10/...spirit-of-the-/ -Witnesses reported that one of the bombers, after hearing about the other blasts, became panicked and looked through his rucksack in a 'confused and frightened manner'. Does this sound like a devout Islamofascist who was ready to die for Allah? Why were there no cries of Allah Akbar, but instead a bomber hearing about the other explosions and panicking, looking through his bag? Did he even know that there was a real bomb in his bag? The police admitted that all of the bombers didn't match the MO of suicide bombers. They bought two-way tickets, they had happy families who were in disbelief after the bombing, they had good jobs and played cricket the night before. Surveillance cameras caught one of the alleged bombers arguing with the ticket clerk about the price of his ticket. All of this led investigators to conclude that the bombers were unaware that they had explosives in their backpacks. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=MoxPY3H5EqA -Haroon Aswat, the alleged mastermind of the bombing, was revealed to be working for MI6. John Loftus, a former Justice Department prosecutor, revealed on FOX News that Aswat was being chased by the British police, but one wing of British intel had been protecting him and hiding him. Aswat and a friend tried to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon. Seattle prosecutors wanted to stop them, but they were told by the headquarters of the Department of Justice not to touch Aswat. He's protected by and works for MI6. -An eyewitness (Bruce Lait) reported that there was no man with a bag on the train carriage he was on. He says there wasn't even a bag. He says, instead, that metal was pushed upwards, as if there had been a bomb planted underneath the train. http://web.archive.org/web/20051107004957/...779a86926f9.lpf -The mysterious death of Jean Charles De Menezes, that took place shortly after the London Bombings, appears to have been a carefully planned assassination conducted by black operatives. Sue Thomason, a freelance journalist, was an earwitness to the shooting, heard 11 shots, which is more than the officials wanted to admit. This detail of her testimony was omitted from the IPCC. Police said that they suspected he was a bomber. When questioned, they first said that he was wearing a heavy coat on a hot morning, but CCTV images now show that they were lying, because he was wearing a light jacket. Before these CCTV images were released, the police lied and said that it had been established that there were 'technical problems' with the CCTV images that day. He was shot execution-style. The group of police that killed him were led by a "special Army unit" (See, this is an example of a black-ops agent). Government/police whistleblowers were disciplined and an ITN reporter was arrested for obtaining what would normally be a public police report on the incident. It's now known that the police that weren't part of the special Army unit didn't know why they killed De Menezes. They didn't know why they were following him. No, they were being led by a 'special Army unit' who knew exactly why De Menezes was to be shot, and it wasn't because he was a terrorist. The police squatted on De Menezes. Witnesses say that his expression indicated that he knew who they were. It's clear that the men following him knew he had no bomb. They were trained police officers and military personnel. They know that if someone has a bomb, you don't shoot at them and you definitely don't squat on them. No, De Menezes had information about the London Bombings. He knew too much and was eliminated like the witnesses connected to the JFK assassination were. http://infowars.net/Pages/Aug05/260805DeMenezes_cover_up.htm -Israeli media reported that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli minister of finance, was warned not to leave his hotel to attend a meeting that was less than 100 yards away from the bombings. This warning came before the bombings took place. Who warned him? The head of Mossad. Why didn't Mossad say anything when Scotland Yard was reporting for over an hour and a half that the explosions were caused by a 'power surge'? http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/07..._netanyahu.html -The office of Ariel Sharon, who was then Prime Minister of Israel, ordered Israeli officials not to give interviews relating to the London Bombings. http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/uk_..._talk_media.htm -Conveniently, there is no footage from inside the No.30 bus because the security camera 'malfunctioned'. A London Stagecoach said emailed Prison Planet to say that he did not believe this 'malfunctioning camera' story because surveillance cameras are checked 2-3 times a week. He also revealed that a contractor that nobody who worked there recognized had come to inspect the security cameras in the buses days before the attacks. This strange contractor spent a whopping 20 hours doing this. The stagecoach was very suspicious of this. http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_at..._suspicious.htm -Amazingly conveniently and impossibly, all four of the alleged bombers' IDs were conveniently undamaged, lying at the scene. This is similar to 9-11, where the hijackers' IDs were found at all four of the 'airplane crash' sites. There was one problem. One of the London bombers' identification was found in two of different bomb sites. -The way the conspirators involve hundreds of people who don't know what they're doing and what they're participating in is compartmentalization. The way they achieve this compartmentalization is through 'training exercises'. When 9-11 occurred, the air force was running live-fly hijacking exercises and plane crash simulations. The ATF appeared to have been running 'training drills' with their bomb squad during the Oklahoma City Bombing. It is important to understand that these exercises provide cover for the real conspirators and allow the involvement of hundreds of others who believe they are simply participating in a drill. If the patsies are caught and the operation is blown, it can be claimed that this was simply a training exercise. Echelon eavesdroppers will be fooled into thinking that terror plans they're overhearing from CIA/MI6/Mossad are simply part of a drill. And get this. During the London Bombings, Visor Consultants, a crisis management company with connections to MI5, Giuliani, and Scotland Yard was running an exercise about numerous bombs going off in the London Underground in the exact same stations involved in the actual attack. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=E1HPNpxbfX8 -One month before the London Bombings, MI5 downgraded security on the London Underground, despite the fact that the G8 Summit was to happen. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article541654.ece CONCLUSION: It is obvious that the London attacks were carried out by covert elements within the British government and intelligence community. THEORY: The bombers were actually good, ordinary, law-abiding citizens of Britain. They were told that they could get some extra money if they took part in a training exercise that was being run by Visor Consultants. This drill would have them go into stations with fake bombs to test security on the London underground. In reality, they were given real bombs. After two of the blasts, one of them began to suspect that he had been set up, and panicked, shortly before his bomb went off. The "Power Surge" story acted as a cover for the general public while evidence was planted and the stage was set for the official version. Jean Charles De Menezes, a contract electrician, who had seen too much and knew too much about the true purpose of the "Power Surge" in the London Underground, was ambushed and shot dead by a hit team consisting of a group of police officers and a special Army unit.

1) The vast majority of the eyewitness accounts in NY are inconsistent with the story of a commercial jetliner. There were some 911liars in New York and at the Pentagon (Sean Murtagh and Mike Walter), but many saw what really happened and reported it. They just had TV replays shoved in their face, though. 2) First off, there weren't thousands of experts involved in writing the NIST report. Second, there are plenty of other experts who disagree with the NIST report. Third, evidence shows that the NIST investigation was built-to-fail, which explains why they released such a sloppy, debunkable report. Strange for 'top scientists'. Just saying "Oh, so they're all lying?" instead of addressing all the experts who disagree with them and all the problems in their report is a cop out. 3) When did I say you were lying? I just think you haven't looked into staged terrorism and haven't gone into conspiracy research with an entirely open mind. 4) First of all, it's not "the government", as in the stoogeaucrats that are behind this. It's highly competent and highly ruthless forces in CIA/MI6/Mossad and covert, 'black-ops' elements of the military. First, I never said "your friends" conduct was dishonorable. Do you know the SAS guys who were caught shooting cops in Basra dressed as Arabs? Surely you aren't going to suggest that their conduct was honorable. Second, don't say my claims are "totally unsubstantiated" when I gave you a link to an article that laid it out perfectly and gave sources/references. I didn't "hear it from a guy on the Internet". I checked the sources and the evidence was undeniable. Did you even read the article? If you did, you wouldn't deny that covert, 'black-ops' sections of the US/UK forces stage terror in Iraq. Sure, when CIA/MI6/Mossad stage terrorism and create/foster Islamic terror groups and use them as patsies so their names are all over the news, there are going to be "Me too!" terrorist wannabes in the Islamic community. The organizations that caused this worldwide 'inspiration' for young, wannabe terrorists and middle-aged, misguided extremists were created and/or fostered by the intelligence community, which is the biggest terrorist organization in the world, IMO. When did I say that there has been no honorable conduct by military? There are a lot of sickos in the forces (Mostly in the US forces, but UK forces aren't above it), but they stand beside good folks who are serving for the right reasons. I also never said that all of the troops were involved in the conspiracy. Covert, 'black-ops' sections of the troops, however, are. You can't deny that. It's documented. SAS guys were caught trying to stage a terrorist attack in Basra. They were out dressed as Arabs and shooting police officers. They had explosives in their vehicle. When they were caught and jailed, did the UK government or military command denounce their actions? No, they attacked the prison, killed guards, and let hundreds of prisoners go to free them. Those were real live, black-ops/false-flag murderers that the Basra police had nabbed.. and they weren't allowed to keep them. To make your case, you must do both. Prove the official record wrong or unreliable and then establish your version (with evidence) as more reliable or at least as a possible alternative. Never said that about you or anyone else. It is unreasonable to lump "conspiracy theorists" into one group. That's what the media programming teaches us to do. Actually, many people do that. Go check out some of Killtown's material. He's done a great job on showing that Flight 93 could not have crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Proving that someone placed bombs in the Towers is easy. 1) Squibs (They could not have been caused by 'air compression' because many of them occur floors below the collapse wave) 2) On-video explosions (High-velocity detonation sounds on video, Explosion caught on tape 9.5 seconds before Building 7 fell and two explosions caught during the collapse) 3) Reports of explosions (Hundreds of eyewitnesses in New York heard explosions from the Twin Towers and Building 7) 4) Video evidence (Videos show an explosion before the collapse of the South Tower. After the explosion, white smoke begins to rise from the ground. We see this smoke rising from the base in many other videos) 5) Collapse videos (Collapse videos show explosions/flashes going off all over the Towers during the collapse) 6) Force (Videos/Photos show steel beams being thrown hundreds of feet outward.. structural failure doesn't do this.. this requires explosive force) 7) Speed (The Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed very rapidly) Dust (The Twin Towers and Building 7 produced massive amounts of pulverized, fine concrete dust when they fell) 9) WTC7 (WTC7 exhibited all the characteristics of a controlled demolition when it fell) But, also look at the evidence of the use of more exotic, hi-tech weaponry. Most of that information can be found on this website.

The "United 93" movie was propaganda. Flight 93 never crashed in Shanksville. There is no plane in that crater. There were no commercial airplane crashes on 9-11. No planes, no hijackers. Just faked videos, bombs, drones, and a man-made crash site. Very exotic weaponry and explosives were used to destroy the World Trade Center.

The main question for me about Larry Silverstein's 'Pull It' is "Why did Perp Larry Silverstein come public on PBS and never admit it anywhere else?" and "Why did the mainstream media allow the clip to be played? Why wouldn't be taken out of the DVD?". I got my answer when I was showing my friends clips of Building 7 and how it was clearly demolished. They were all pretty convinced, and then I showed them the 'Pull It' clip. Before I said anything, they all said "Ah! That explains it! The building was demolished for public safety!". Regardless of the fact that you cannot wire a building in a few hours, people's knee-jerk reaction to such a statement will be "Ah, nothing nefarious about this demolition!". Since Building 7 was an obvious demolition, the perpetrators obviously needed to control the situation for people who would look further than the "Fire+Damage" explanation. They had Perp Larry Silverstein (Who had very close ties to Israel and Netanyahu) say 'Pull It'. It was vague (Pull what?), there was some plausible deniability ("He meant the firefighters!), and it was enough to fool people who had just woken up to the fact that Building 7 was demolished (Guys, I found out it was a public safety demolition!). So, the "Pull It" remark was a PSYOP. The more conclusive evidence relating to Building 7 is the way it fell. No amount of fire+damage could cause a skyscraper to fall that way. That is exactly the type of collapse that demolition experts aim for when wiring a building. It takes weeks of planning to bring a building down in that fashion. It does not happen by accident. Getting back to 'Pull It', we must be careful when the perps hand us the clues. Building 7 may have been a giant PSYOP in itself. It is an obvious conventional demolition. It brought us down the lines of "Well, Building 7 was obvious, so they were probably all conventional demolitions!". Evidence now indicates, though, that exotic weaponry was used to destroy the Twin Towers. Evidence also seems to be emerging that indicates that the perpetrators are actively trying to cover up this exotic technology (because it is a sensitive means of deception). Perhaps Building 7 was used to lead people down the "It was all 100% conventional" road. Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset working under the name "Tim Osman". His right-hand man, Zawahiri, was trained by the CIA in Bosnia. The seeds that would grow into Al Qaeda were trained/funded/armed/taught by US forces. Top-level officials of FBI and MI6 has been caught protecting Al Qaeda cells. Mossad has been caught creating fake Al Qaeda cells. It would seem that Al Qaeda is a CIA/MI6/Mossad production. As for Bin Laden, my guess is that he's dead, because they haven't been able to produce any "Bin Laden Videos" that are the least bit convincing. The two "9/11 Confession" videos were the most poorly done ones. It is interesting that initially, he denied responsibility for the attacks thrice. Ask the FBI what evidence they have that connects Bin Laden to 9/11. Ed Haas of the Mucracker Report called the FBI and asked why the September 11th attacks weren't listed as one of Bin Laden's crimes on his Most Wanted poster. He was told by Agent Rex Tomb that this was because "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11". I used to think that Flight 93 was shot down by a fighter, but I don't think it crashed in Shanksville now: There's no plane here. Just a cartoon, plane-shape hole.

Taks is right. They were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 going at 600mph. A Boeing 707 was the largest airplane at the time. On 9/11, we are told that the Towers were hit by Boeing 767s. The 707/767 really are quite comparable: We have the building designers, and then we have quite a few structural/civil engineers and relevant building architects: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html There are also some demolitions experts who agree with the demolition theory: http://www.bt.dk/article/20010912/NYHEDER/109120204/1192 http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Jowenko http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...10707expert.htm The head of a national demolition association said that the collapse of the Twin Towers looked like a "classic demolition": http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281 According to the official version, a commercial airplane hit the higher floors of the Tower and started an inferno that weakened the supports in that area, causing them to snap, which caused the tops of the buildings to fall into themselves, initiating global collapse. This is debunked here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/ One of the many reasons NIST's theory does not add up is the fact that it relies on the airplane creating a massive inferno to weaken the steel supports to the point of snapping. The problem with that is that they themselves admit that they couldn't find evidence of heat above 600 degrees, which isn't even enough heat to reduce half of the steel's strength. No. Al Qaeda is not complete fiction. It's greatly exaggerated (every time there's a random attack, it's 'believed to be linked to al qaeda'.. they couldn't find any Al Qaeda link to 3-11 in Madrid but the propagandists repeated the "believed to be linked to al qaeda" line like sheep). Al Qaeda was created by US intelligence and is backed from behind the scenes by US/UK/Israeli/Pakistani intelligence. It is an intelligence operation. Many of the bombings in Iraq are staged by US/UK forces. I can provide EVIDENCE that they are working to stage attacks inside Iraq and pin them on Al Qaeda. Be offended at them, not me. Please read: Were British Special Forces Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...p;articleId=994 As I said, two British SAS guys were caught trying to stage an Al Qaeda bombing. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a fact. They were caught doing it. They got thrown in jail and British forces busted them out. This was in the news, but they brushed it off as if it was nothing. Also, when you say "your friends and colleagues", if you mean the military, it's not your everyday soldier that's behind this. Al Qaeda is a US/UK/Israeli/Pakistani intelligence operation. Think spooks. There are, as you saw with those SAS guys, 'special units' in the military that are engaged in such activities. How is shooting cops in Basra and trying to stage a false flag bombing "honorable conduct"? When you invade a country and a ton of people there hate you, shootouts between infantry and the people there are to be expected. You can't pin it all on an organized "Al Qaeda". Most of the shootouts are real, but the bombings? Nope. Many of the bombings are false flag operations designed to keep the Al CIAda scares alive. Want evidence? Here's some evidence: "People from the area claim that the man was taken away not because he shot anyone, but because he knew too much about the bomb. Rumor has it that he saw an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away." http://riverbendblog.blogspit.com/2005_05_...636281930496496 I understand. That's just a rumor. Let's use a more solid example:

Please read this detailed and well-researched review of NIST's fraud report: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/ Just because they followed the scientific method doesn't meant they were right. It is my opinion that the NIST report was built to fail. Have you read Jim Hoffman's review? The explosions that were reported were either immediately prior to the collapses or in the period between the impacts and the collapses. Therefore, we can safely rule out an airplane impact as a possibility of what these witnesses heard. Hell, we can hear one of these explosions for ourselves. Check it out: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I Doesn't this sound exactly like an explosive detonation? A comparison video suggested that it was just that: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=I84-_hcbtyU Well, the most compelling explosions are the ones that occurred on the lower floors. Since Shyam Sunder admits that the majority of the jet fuel would have burned off in around 10 minutes, the most plausible explanation is that these explosions were events completely separate from the initial explosion. What does that leave us with? Also, we have the designers coming out and saying that the building was designed to take only local damage from the 600mph impact of a commercial airplane. We know that the Towers were redundant and had strong, steel supports that made it one of the strongest buildings in the world. As Scientific American said, "They just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center". NIST admits that they found no evidence of fires above 600 degrees. This isn't even enough heat to cause the steel to lose half it's strength. We also know, based on the photographs, that the fires in the Tower were only local. We know that the impact area had only a few small fires, and was not that hot, as a woman was photographed waving from the hole and hanging onto a steel beam. She was not melted or burnt to a crisp. So, the airplane hits were not enough to cause collapse AND people heard explosions on the lower levels AND a high-velocity detonation sound was caught on video in the area. And what about Building 7? NIST admits that most of the building was not damaged. In fact, only one face was damaged and only had some holes in it. The other sides only had a few small fires on only a few floors. The Murrah building had it's entire front face blown out, but did not collapse. The Windsor Building burned all night long like a torch but still stood, and was able to support a large crane on it's roof. When it collapsed, it collapsed straight-down, vertically. It's center columns appeared to have been taken out, because the center of the roof was pulled downwards, massive amounts of pulverized, fine concrete dust was produced at it's base, the exterior walls were pulled towards it's central axis, the collapse was preceded by a 'clap of thunder', there were 'booms' all the way down during the collapse, and it collapsed nearly entirely into it's own footprint.. which does not happen by accident. That is what demolition professionals work to achieve.. So you can see that Building 7 collapsed in a way that was completely inconsistent with structural failure but that exhibited every characteristic of a controlled demolition. If you need even more evidence, Indira Singh (Ground Zero emergency worker) was told that Building 7 would be 'brought down', Kenneth McPadden heard a guy counting down over his radio before the collapse, and Barry Jennings heard massive explosions inside Building 7 prior to the collapse. The way Building 7 collapsed rules out the official explanation for it's collapse.

The OKC bombing has been proven with hard science to be an inside job. Read the report of General Benton K. Partin, an explosives expert. It was never scientifically refuted and it proved the existence of explosive device inside the Murrah building.. a fact which is backed up by all the local news reports in Oklahoma and sworn testimony from multiple eyewitnesses, as well as seismic evidence. The official version of the WTC collapses was not based on hard science. The corporate media and 'official' experts fed the public different story after different story. First, it was that the steel trusses melted. Then, it was that the floors pancaked. As the false explanations fell, government/military-linked NIST provided the world with "the official story", which states that the impact damaged the steel supports, and the fires that followed continued to weaken them until the intense heat caused the supports to buckle and eventually snap, sending the top portion of the building falling down into the rest. A detailed, well-researched critique of the NIST's report was done by Jim Hoffman. It can be found here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/ The government's case depends on the witnesses dying or growing too old to remember. Hundreds of witnesses reported explosions inside the World Trade Center, many on the lower floors. The OKC witnesses remember the ATF carrying unexploded bombs out of the building and secondary explosions. I know that truth doesn't have to equal conspiracy. Once again, I just call them as I see them.