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.

How can intimidation of witnesses be incompetence? That's cover-up. When your intimidating/trying to kill/threatening a witness and telling them what to say, you are not failing to do something or bumbling around, you are trying to change the eyewitness' testimony or erase eyewitnesses. The plausible explanation for trying to change witness testimony is to cover something up. When the eyewitnesses happen to be Richard Carr, Acquila Clemmons, Orville Nix, and Nelson Delgado, all of whom have testimony that conflicts with the official version of events, then the plausible explanation is that the cover-up in relation to these witness testimonies is likely because they are damaging the official version. I will list two examples of journalists who have unmistakably covered up the Kennedy assassination. ---- #1: Dan Rather Dan Rather's 1963 report on the Zapruder film had him telling the public, who weren't allowed to see the film at this time, that the film showed Kennedy's head being pushed forward with 'considerable violence'. This is not an issue of scientific expertise or analysis. This is a simple report on whether the President went forward or backward. There are only two explanations here: 1. Rather did not see the tape. 2. Rather did see the tape and is lying about it. Either one has Rather lying. The most plausible explanation for a lie would be a cover-up. Here the audio of Rather lying for yourself: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/rather4.wav #2: Peter Jennings In Jennings' pathetic WarrenCommission-hugging hit piece "Beyond Conspiracy", he played part of a conference with Malcolm Kilduff, Kennedy's assistant press secretary. He cut the conference off seconds before Kilduff demonstrated with his hand that the bullet hit Kennedy in the front of the head. To cut that part off is dishonest. See the fulll conference with Malcolm Kilduff here: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=dJP_m5mv0IU ---- Also, what about Orville Nix? Once you hear his story, it's clear that the media was covering something up: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iJE9XQZvis8 "it is most often the right one, contrary to your belief." I disagree with that, but let's focus on the evidence. No it hasn't. All the debunking claims are debunk-able themselves. One of the popular debunking myths is that the diesel fuel caused the collapse. This is false. The FEMA report admits that no diesel smells were reported in Building 7. The debunkers fail to explain why: *The building came straight down, vertically, nearly symmetrically. *The building came nearly into it's own footprint. This doesn't happen by accident. This is what controlled demolitions are designed to achieve. *The building produced massive amounts of fine, pulverized concrete dust. *The building came down in under 7 seconds and fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds. *The building's exterior walls were pulled towards the center. *The building appeared to 'pull itself' down, with a 'kink' present in the center of the roof. *According to an eyewitness (Daryl the medical student), there was a 'clap of thunder' explosion, a shockwave, and then the bottom floor caved out, followed by the building. *According to an eyewitness (Craig Bartmer), there were 'booms' going off constantly during the collapse. *According to an eyewitness (Al Jones), the building came down 'from an explosion'. *Photographs show that the heaviest damage was only on one side of the building, and did not appear to be severe enough to bring the building down. The fires on the other sides were small and much of the building appeared to be standing solid. *Many skyscraper fires have caused more damage, burned longer, and were larger than the ones in Building 7. None of these other steel buildings collapsed. The Murrah building was more severely damaged than Building 7, but it didn't collapse. The fires in the Windsor Building burned all night and damaged it way more than Building 7 was damaged. Part of the building fell, but the building itself stayed standing and was able to support a large crane on the roof. *The Bankers Trust building was further away, but did not collapse. So, we already have powerful evidence that fires were not responsible and that the building exhibited all of the key characteristics of a controlled demolition (It collapsed straight down, It collapsed nearly into it's own footprint, fell rapidly, produced fine, pulverized dust at it's base, the exterior walls were pulled towards the center, there was a kink in the center, indicating that the central supports had failed simultaneously, and the collapse was preceded by an explosion). The photo showing the worst damage that I've seen is this one: http://911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg It looks pretty fake, though, wouldn't you say? Just look at it. WTC7 looks cartoonish. Assuming that it's real, though, does this look like the damage of 'falling debris'? Looks more like blast damage to me.Let's assume that it is, though! Does this hole look bad enough to take down a skyscraper? Look at the upper floors. They are completely in-tact and undamaged, except for a few charred/broken windows. Oh, there was also this photo: http://911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7groove2.jpg That's another debunker favorite, but come on. This looks so fake. Falling debris doesn't cause neat, straight vertical gashes. Just look at it. Let's assume that this is real and was caused by falling debris, though. The rest of the building around this gash is fine and in-tact. NIST's own graphic admits that most of the building wasn't damaged: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.h2.jpg More proof of demolition comes in the form of the 911 responders. Indira Singh, a Ground Zero emergency worker, said on the "Guns & Butter" radio program that she was told that they were going have to "bring down" Building 7. http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=78 Kenneth McPadden, an eyewitness to the collapse, said that he saw a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth with a radio. Over the radio, he heard "3.. 2.. 1.." then explosions happened and Building 7 collapsed. 9/11 researcher Kevin Barret said that he heard from a number of responders who heard a countdown before the WTC7 collapse over their radios. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc Barry Jennings, a man who worked in Building 7, reported multiple explosions inside Building 7 before it collapsed and a 'big explosion'. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually

I said that it implies that the scenario 'could be' and should not be immediately thrown out. Since governments are known to stage terrorism for political motive and the administration certainly did benefit from 9-11, I'm saying that the scenario should not be thrown out on the grounds of 'too many people' or 'they wouldn't have the moral capability'. As for "Just because it could doesn't mean it did", I agree. I'm just showing that it CAN happen, and thus, we shouldn't have to get into issues of moral capability or magnitude. #1: None of it was conjecture. I can back all of it up. Eyewitnesses who saw Kennedy's body said that they felt that the autopsy photos were forgeries because the photos contradicted what they remembered (a large exit wound in the back). As for the stand-down, the secret service is on videotape being ordered to stand down. As for the witness intimidation, I can tell you about plenty of that. Orville Nix witnessed a shot from the knoll and in his CBS interview, he said that. This was followed by 'Cut!' and he was told to change his story to "the shots came from the depository". #2: Occam's Razor is highly unreliable. The simplest explanation is not always the right one. In fact, many times officials initially assume the simplest and turn out to be wrong. #3: I don't feel that every conspiracy claim regarding 9/11 have simple explanations. There are plenty that do, but there are plenty that don't. Building 7, for example. No, not obvious to me. Obvious to anyone willing to look at the facts. You yourself said that the forensics indicate that more is going on. *Dozens of eyewitnesses spoke of shots from the Grassy Knoll area. *The doctors in Dallas unanimously reported that there was a large exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head. *Acoustics experts hired by congress to analyze a tape of the assassination found that there was a fourth shot that had come from the Grassy Knoll area. There is irrefutable evidence of a second gunman who fired from the front and hit the President. This evidence comes in the form of the testimony of the Dallas doctors, the testimony of Grassy Knoll eyewitnesses, and the acoustics evidence. Now, follow the implications. The media has promoted the ridiculous official line that state that Kennedy 'slumped forward' after getting shot. Dan Rather reported that the shot thrust Kennedy forward with 'considerable violence'. They have put out ridiculously dishonest hit pieces like Peter Jennings' "Beyond Conspiracy". The government got the Warren Commission (Full of suspicious folks) to put out ridiculous, disproven lies ("The Magic Bullet"). When we see this, how can we deny a cover up? If there was a second gunman, as the evidence suggests, and the government/media covered this up, as the evidence suggests, what does that suggest? It would be nice if you explained how I am doing all of these things.

this is the point at which you get into pure conjecture. you don't know anything about how the black world works (not directly at least) except from what you read on conspiracy sites. you draw one weak link after another then use the final point to "prove" everything you've said. it's all conjecture. since they can they must be. sheesh. the quote immediately above this is a perfect example. "ask yourself this" and "why" are nothing but conjecture in which you start off with an answer then phrase your questions to support that answer. when you extend your physical evidence to come to a conclusion which is only one of many possibilities said physical evidence becomes circumstantial. you've provided a bunch of points of evidence (you confuse the terms evidence and proof rather often) then filled in the gaps between these points with your own pre-conceived notions. that is all circumstantial. taks History has shown us that this is how it works. It's also the logical way you would carry out a secret operation. The government is run on a 'need to know' basis. That is not conjecture. This fact is what refutes the "thousands of people would have been involved!" argument. I never said that. I said that since we know that they do, then there should be no question as to whether such a conspiracy could really occur in relation to 9/11. Whether it be questions of the magnitude of the conspiracy or whether they were morally capable, all of that is explained by the fact that governments have done this before. It was proven through recorded phone conversations that the 1993 bombing of the WTC was organized by the FBI. It was proven through sworn testimony, expert reports, and an endless fountain of other evidence that the Oklahoma City Bombing was an inside job. We now know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a complete fabrication and that the US deliberately allowed the Israeli military to attack the USS Liberty and ordered fighters that were sent out to defend it to stand down. We now know about the Northwoods documents, Operation Ajax, Operation Gladio, and the US links to Islamic terrorism. Since governments are known to stage terror, we know that 9-11 'could have been' staged terror and that the scenario has no real logical problems (Moral capability, Too many perps, etc.). We should move on to a discussion of the evidence. None of it is conjecture. Ask me to back up any of those points that I made and I will. No. The forensics evidence, acoustics evidence, and eyewitness evidence all indicates that there was a shot from the Grassy Knoll. The obvious conclusion is that there was a second gunman who fired from that area. When we see the media and government covering this up, we can start to smell out a wider conspiracy. The other points, such as witness intimidation, the theft of the body by secret service spooks, the mutilation of the body, the stand-down of security, and Oswald's CIA background is all evidence that leads us to a larger conspiracy.

nonsense. compartmentalization only works with things that do not require massive coordination. that's why the basics of nsa operation, for example, are rather easy to figure out with a little research. not out of the realm of possibility is a far cry from "it happened." you saying so don't make it so. i don't disagree that there is more to the story and the forensics seem to indicate as such. but when you take the forensics as evidence that there was a conspiracy that is indeed circumstantial. the point is that it is not only difficult, but impossible to keep things secret on such a grand scale. the argument isn't circular at all. taks Still, with the 'need to know' basis of the US government and the general compartmentalization in MILDEC (Military Deception) operations, there would not need to be thousands of 911 perpetrators in the 'conspiracy' scenario. There just needs to be the 'top level', 'black ops' parts of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, Pentagon, DOD, etc. I don't deny that hundreds would know, but my argument is that these same hundreds have been behind other horrible events in history and haven't lost a night's sleep. These are ruthless individuals. As for the more 'minor' perps, the Milgram Experiment and the Holocaust taught us about people. There are many, many people who will do horrible things just because a superior orders them to do it. Just ask the Israeli fighter pilots who bombed the USS Liberty or the British intelligence agents posing as Islamic terrorists in Basra. Exactly. My point is that since it is not uncommon for governments to stage terror for political motives, we should stop questioning the logic of such a scenario and discuss the evidence. Think about the implications, though. The forensics evidence proves a shot from the front. The shot from the front proves that there was a second rifleman. Now, ask yourself why there was such a cover-up of this information. Ask yourself why the autopsy photos were forged to cover this up. Ask yourself why Grassy Knoll witnesses were intimidated. Ask yourself why JFK's security was stripped from him that day. Please, then, explain how all of my arguments were circumstantial.

When it comes to whether documents are authentic or not, just get them from the source. I can provide you with unaltered documents from 1962 that detail how the US military wanted to carry out attacks on US targets inside and outside of the US, stage terrorism campaigns in DC and Florida, stage shoot-downs of commercial airplanes, and frame Cuba for the attacks so they could have a war. How do I know these documents, entitled "Northwoods", are unaltered? Because they are straight from the National Security Archives: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ It all depends on the source. You need to do research to learn what's factual and what isn't. I never dismiss things, no matter how crazy they sound. The trick is to always do the research and find the sources. Doing that will, in the end, let you know about a statement's validity or lack of thereof. =============== Taks, you talk a lot about compartmentalization. This is how 9-11 and military black operations are carried out in general. The operation is run on a 'need-to-know' basis. Only 10s of people necessarily were aware of and had access to the full 9-11 plan. Other people were left in the dark. The FBI agents who came to the gas station minutes after the Pentagon strike to confiscate the security footage were not necessarily involved. Based on the structure of the FBI as an organization, it is more than likely that they were simply told to do that by a superior, who could have been told to issue that order by another superior, and so on.. leaving only a select amount of people who are 'key perps'. You are correct in saying that large operations require more perps. This, however, is not a problem, since the people involved in government black operations are completely ruthless. Governments stage terrorism. History has shown this fact. It is not out of the realm of possibilities. As for Oklahoma City, please watch this video: 17:14-45:9 http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+...l=en&emb=0# Experts, Eyewitnesses, and initial reports all confirm that bombs were planted on the inside of the Alfred P. Murrah building. We have tons of initial news reports saying that it is confirmed that bomb squads are carrying two explosive devices out of the building to diffuse them. Eyewitnesses heard secondary explosions and saw the ATF carrying bombs away from the building. Benton K. Partin, a retired Brigadier General and an explosives expert wrote a report that scientifically proves the existence of other bombs in the Murrah building. Any one of these facts (Witnesses, Reports, Experts) would be proof enough for me, but all of them combined should be proof enough for anyone. It is a fact that bombs were inside the building. Terry Nichols swore in an affidavit that the bombing was directed by the FBI: http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/trentadue-ni...claration-1.pdf Photographs show that a yellow Ryder Truck (The exact same kind of truck McVeigh used) was in a military base (Very 'out of place') in Northern Oklahoma days before the Oklahoma City Bombing. http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLIT...RUCK/truck.html A video shows McVeigh in military uniform, in a military base that specializes in explosives and demolition training, one year AFTER he supposedly left the Army. http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/okc_bo...icial_story.htm It was reported on MAINSTREAM NEWS that the ATF wasn't in the building when it was bombed because they had been warned not to come in that day. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl9tI8TiKfQ It's also been proven irrefutably through multiple eyewitnesses that there was a second man in the OKC truck. Officials deny this. The surveillance cameras would end this debate.. but guess what? They won't release the surveillance cameras. But wait, there's more! The FBI's Counter-Terrorism chief was Danny Coulson, and WorldNetDaily obtained a receipt proving that Coulson had checked into a hotel near the Murrah building the night before the blast. In Coulson's book, "No Heroes: Inside the FBI's Secret Counter-Terror Force,", he states that he was in Fort Worth when he heard about the bombing, and that he rushed to Oklahoma by car. So, Danny Coulson, the chief Counter-Terrorism agent in the FBI, checked into a nearby hotel the night before and later lied about it in his own book. You couldn't ask for more powerful evidence that Coulson was a perp. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26115 And, circumstantial evidence??? Sorry, 80% of the evidence I've shown is not circumstantial. As for JFK II, I don't see how the doctors in Dallas unanimously stating that there was an exit hole in the back of Kennedy's head is circumstantial. That's hard, corroborated testimony that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kennedy was shot from the front. Comedy gold? I'm providing facts. Facts that aren't too funny, I'm afraid. If you could debunk them, you could laugh, but when one laughs at what he simply disagrees with, providing no evidence of his/her own, then they are simply trolling. I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss the idea of 'conspiracy' based on the fact that "people will leak". Many government black ops go on behind the scenes and they do not get leaked. History shows us that government stages terror. The end. So, let's get to the evidence instead of continuing circular arguments on whether it would have leaked or not.

Well, here's plenty of licensed structural engineers and relevant architects who say that he's wrong on that: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html Also, your friend does not seem to know much about this event. Two passenger planes did not fly into one building. A plane flew into one building. Another plane flew into another building. The planes hit on the higher floors and caused only local damage. The majority of their fuel exploded outside. Also, a third building, Tower 7, fell down. No airplane crashed into it. Two airplanes cannot destroy three skyscrapers. It was further away from the Twin Towers than the Bankers Trust building and fell straight down, nearly symmetrically, almost entirely into it's own footprint, producing large, billowing clouds of fine, pulverized concrete at it's base, as it collapsed. The center of the building appeared to be pulled down into itself. The exterior walls were pulled towards it's center. Eyewitnesses reported loud explosions inside Building 7 immediately prior and during the collapse. All of this is very consistent with controlled demolition but not with a structural failure-induced collapse. Further fortifying the case for demolition: Responders Heard A Countdown Just Before Building 7 Fell http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/fi...o_countdown.htm http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...07building7.htm http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc Former NYPD cop Craig Bartmer was a witness to the Building 7 collapse. He saw the hole and didn't think that it was bad enough to cause collapse. He said that he heard no indication that the building would come down. He heard a succession of explosions during the collapse. He is quite sure that they were explosions. He says that the steel beams were hurriedly removed from the site. Bartmer's account is evidence of controlled demolition. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr89c_cra...s-an-insid_news Eyewitness Michael Hess reported an explosion inside Building 7. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64 Eyewitness Barry Jennings heard many explosions inside Building 7 and said that the lobby was completely destroyed. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q A medical student named Daryl calling into a radio station stated that he witnessed the collapse of Building 7. He stated that before the collapse, there was a 'clap of thunder', a shockwave, and then the bottom floor caved in, followed by the entire building. This 'clap of thunder' is exactly the type that we hear in videos of known controlled demolitions. ["911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 31:30)] Reporter Al Jones witnessed the Building 7 collapse and stated that the collapse looked like it was done by a demolition crew and that the building came down because of an 'explosion. ["911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 31:30)] Indira Singh, who was a Ground Zero emergency worker, reported that she was told, in relation to Building 7, that "we're going to have to bring it down.". http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=78 Dan Rather's report on 9-11 was that the building was brought down by dynamite. This, of course, was later 'corrected'. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg Both CNN and BBC reported that Building 7 collapsed before it did, while it stood right behind their on-site reporters. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8979366420729478136 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2161960823229817419 "you suppose"? "so-called"? "Taks", what are your credentials? A former expert could not have been fired because it is a title, not a position. It is a title earned through years of research and experience. For you to say that all of these experts that have spoken out against the official fairytale were "fired for incompetence". Here's a page listing over 640 experts (many of them structural engineers or relevant architects) that disagree with the official version: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html As for the fact that steel can't melt with the temperatures that were present in the WTC.. that isn't a 'leading argument'. At least not one of mine. While "melting steel" is not the official explanation, it was brought out by the corporate media at one point. It was an attempt to explain the collapse, but it failed quite miserably. More importantly, the problem now is that there was a number of observations of melted steel at Ground Zero. Since the temperatures of the small fires in the WTC were not hot enough to melt steel, the fires could not have produced what was observed.. so what was it? Only incindiaries could have created such heat. The case for extreme heat is further fortified with the observations of 'partly evaporated' steel, horseshoe-bent steel beams, and reports of fires that burned for weeks after the event. What is stupid about pointing out that the corporate media lied when it told us that the fires created by the plane crashes resulted in the steel supports melting, bringing forth total collapse? Lies like that are evidence of a cover-up. As for the 'magnitude' argument.. 1. The NSA has thousands of employees but it's a secret agency. 2. The Manhattan Project was kept under wraps. 3. Operation Gladio, an operation involving staged terrorism that was designed to manipulate politics, stayed secret for decades. 4. Whistleblowers who have said that the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy and that they were involved (E. Howard Hunt, Chauncey Holt) have simply been marginalized. 5. The Oklahoma City Bombing has been definitively proven to be an 'inside job', yet it remains secret. 6. The Northwoods documents, described as the most corrupt plan ever thought of by the US military, stayed under wraps for 40 years. These guys are masters of keeping secrets and covering things up. They've done it before and they continue to do it (7-7 Bombings, Virginia Tech, North Illinois Shooting, Omaha Mall Shooting, Mumbai attacks). What about the responder who reported that he heard a countdown just before the collapse of Building 7 over radio and has come public with this story? What about the Ground Zero emergency worker who was told that Building 7 was going to be brought down and has come public with this story? What about Barry Jennings and Craig Bartmer, who witnessed explosions before and during the collapse of Building 7 and have come public with their story (Barry Jennings is dead now RIP)? What about April Gallop, who was working inside the Pentagon and said that the explosion had all the characteristics (based on her military training) of a bomb blast, and came public with her story? What about William Rodriguez, who was working inside the North Tower and heard explosions in the basement shortly before and shortly after the first alleged airplane strike, and came public with his story? What about this guy, who witnessed the event and saw bombs going off in the first floor shortly after the alleged airplane strike at the top and came public? What about John Schroeder, the New York firefighter who saw an explosion in the lobby, said there was no fire inside the lobby, but that it just looked like a bomb had gone off and came public with his story? What about Anthony Saltalamacia, who reported an explosion in the mechanical room before the airplane impact and number of explosions in the basement level that sounded like grenades going off? He came public as well. There are TONS of people who have come forward with personal accounts that provide amazing evidence for the conclusion that there was a conspiracy in relation to the September 11 attacks. The cover-up wasn't successful. It's in shambles after countless people who were there have come forward about what they saw and heard on September 11, 2001. On the Pentagon Crash, the minimal amount of damage to the facade and the lack of positively identifiable airplane debris suspicious. What is more conclusive, though, is the fact that, if we are to believe the official version of a jetliner impact, we are to believe that 30 minutes after everyone knew that America was under attack by hijacked jets and other hijackings were reported, no fighter jets were sent to defend the Pentagon, America's military bullseye, despite their being an air force base with combat-ready fighter squadrons only 10 miles away! If an airplane hit the Pentagon, then the fact that it was allowed to hit without interception, and that the Pentagon was given no precautionary defense, is evidence of an inside job. Further, there are now 13 eyewitnesses that all independently confirm that the airplane they saw 'hit' the building flew on the North Side of the CITGO gas station. This flight path, however, is impossible, if it was to have hit the light poles and caused the damage to the building that we all saw. So, we know a plane flew on that flight path, but that it couldn't have hit the building. The answer to this riddle comes in the form of eyewitnesses. Robert Turcios saw the plane 'pull up' just before the explosion and another witness saw a plane flying over the Pentagon after the explosion. It seems quite clear that the plane people saw flew over the building and did not hit it. What caused the explosion, you ask? Pre-planted explosives. Countless eyewitnesses inside the Pentagon reported a shockwave and that they thought bombs had gone off. Now we have the answer to the riddle. An airplane (most likely a remotely guided drone) flew over the building. This overflight was timed with the detonation of explosives that had been planted under the cover of renovation (the area that was hit was the only area of the building that was being renovated). Black ops happen. They have happened and continue to happen. Most are kept secret. There are always whistleblowers, but those whistleblowers, but those whistleblowers are marginalized. Also, it didn't go off perfectly. That's why there are so many problems with the official version. According to Ben Fountain, an occupant of the South Tower: "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on." http://web.archive.org/web/20010914230312/...74592-5,00.html Also, Scott Forbes, who was in the South Tower, said that a massive power-down happened days before 9-11. He had been working in the WTC for many years, and had never seen anything like it in his time working there. He says that at least the top half of the South Tower was evacuated and that 'engineers' entered the building. During this time, all the security settings were turned off, so these engineers had complete and total access. The fact that the drills were 'unusual' and that the power down was something Forbes had never seen before shows that some very strange, very unusual activities were going on in the WTC in the weeks and days leading up to the attacks. These unusual events could have provided an opportunity for bomb-planting. Witnesses have already talked about construction projects going on in the WTC. So, to answer who was behind all these unusual activities that could have served as the opportunity for explosives, we must look at the WTC's security. In the days and weeks leading up to 9-11, the WTC's security was provided by Kroll Inc., which was known as the CIA of Wall Street because of it's tendency to hire 'former' spooks. Another company that had a more minor role in the security at the WTC was Stratesec, which had links to the Bush family. In fact, George W. Bush's brother Marvin was a director of Securacom until 2000. Maybe you should look into the facts and unaltered documents instead of just calling them 'silly' and putting quotation marks around them to imply that their validity is in question. Facts are facts. Documents are documents. Don't automatically dismiss something as 'silly' because of how it sounds or because of it's status as a conspiracy theory without doing further research.

I say that the media is lying when there is evidence of it. As I showed Nightmare, Dan Rather stated that the Zapruder film showed Kennedy's head being pushed forward with 'considerable violence'. Anyone who has watched the Zap film knows that this isn't the case. Rather is either lying about watching the film or lying about it's contents. We also know the media is a propaganda tool because of the hundreds of hit pieces it puts out against conspiracy theories relating to 9-11, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the JFK/RFK assassinations, and other black ops carried out by covert factions of the US Military-Intelligence complex. Here are some witnesses that support the 'shot from the front' theory. Judge for yourself: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zVHyFZuzGH4 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gLd3O-Tch6o http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=b-IXYfge2Ys http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5VaJQgLmeTg http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iJE9XQZvis8 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=pweuPLTVfl4 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=55jY6RUvxAI (Also watch Part 2) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=c2-_UhD3Qgk Also, consider the fact that the doctors in Dallas unanimously report a large exit wound in the back of the head. Dr. Crenshaw reports an entry in the front. This story is what was reported initially in the New York Times. Acoustics experts hired by congress released their findings, based on a tape of the assassination, and said that with a probability of 95% or better, there was a fourth shot fired from the Grassy Knoll. -Medical evidence -Eyewitness evidence -Acoustics evidence -Initial reports There is clear evidence of a shot from the front. A lot of evidence has come out after 45 long years.

The mainstream media is lying, yes. The mainstream networks are dominated by members of secret societies such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group. There are tons of on-the-record witness accounts of people who saw the shots come from the Grassy Knoll. Mark Lane talked to many people in Dallas and they told him where they saw the shots come from. Also, all the doctors in Dallas unanimously described a large exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head. I don't believe everyone, but to say that all these witnesses and doctors and whistleblowers are all lying.

That was taken out of context. I was referring to your opinion on the film. Unless you can provide evidence against the information compiled in the film, then your criticism remains baseless. Got a point-by-point critique of the film for me? Film a. A movie. b. Movies considered as a group. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/film Sorry, there's no debate on whether JFK II is a film or not. Even if you think it's poorly done, it's still a film. "Big Top Peewee" is one of the worst movies ever made, but regardless, it must be acknowledged as a film. Evidence? It is debated by experts though. On the subject of an event like the JFK assassination, I would trust experts on forensics and eyewitnesses more than "credible historians". After all, many historians are simply relaying the information that is already out there. The better ones interpret the evidence for themselves (which causes debate), but any who dare challenge the Warren Commission are deemed "not credible". Don't let "credible historians" decide everything for you instead of looking at the evidence for yourself. The President of NPR worked as an editor and reporter for The Washington Post for 25 years. The CEO and Chairman of the Washington Post is Donald E. Graham, who attends the meetings of the Bilderberg Group. As you can see, all roads lead back to the mainstream media. The mainstream media is dominated by corporations and members of groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group, all of which are forces for the global agenda. It is not reasonable to dismiss the information in my video simply because it is on the Internet. Did you watch the entire video? It explains things quite well, in my opinion. If you want evidence that the media lies, let's look at an example from the JFK assassination. Dan Rather, a well-known reporter for CBS, got to see the Zapruder film before anyone else did. He stated that the film shows Kennedy's head going forward with 'considerable violence'. Anyone who has watched the video knows that to be untrue. We are left with two possibilities. The first is that he is lying about seeing the video and simply reading what the officials are saying about a shot from behind. The second is that he saw the video, but is lying about it's contents. Hear him fibbing to America: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/rather4.wav Sure. What would you like evidence for? So? They aren't making a hit piece and definitively saying it's untrue. So, what do you think? Is Hunt a liar too? Unlike other whistleblowers, his background is well-known and we know that he worked for Nixon and the CIA. He was one of the Watergate burglars. We know he was involved in covert, unlawful operations with the US government, based on his involvement in Watergate. We know that while he was in jail, he told the press that he was a CIA assassin and said to Nixon that if he did not give him $1,000,000, he would 'tell all' about the Kennedy assassination. Hunt got his money from one of George H.W Bush's close associates. Nixon also ordered the FBI to stop investigating Hunt, and got resigned for it. Why did Nixon take it this seriously if Hunt was a liar? Well, try me. What would you like evidence for? I can provide plenty of evidence that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.

And, in my opinion, it is nothing more than yet another amachure "documentary" -and I use that term in the loosest possible way- that tries to dis-prove history. If there was any reasonable explanation of a conspiracy it would be front-page news throughout the world - or do you claim that everyone at every news agency is involved in the alleged "cover-up?" [edited by SteveThaiBinh to remove personal insult] 1. What do you base 'your opinion' on? Have you even watched JFK II? If so, point out actual problems with the movie. ""documentary" -and I use that term in the loosest possible way"? God, I hope you've watched it (for your sake), because if you haven't watched it, then you have just made quite the fool out of yourself for giving such strong criticism to a movie you've never watched. If you have watched it, then start producing some evidence. 2. "Dis-prove history"? History has been changed many times and is still debated! Stop trying to act like some kind of offense is being made when someone argues their own point of view on the event. I guess anyone who says that the Iraq war was bad will be accused of trying to "dis-prove history" 40 years from now. 3. There is a reason the news constantly lies about the assassination.. do some research on all the major news agencies. CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, you name it. They are all run by corporations. The news is not honest. It's a propaganda machine that is used by the criminals that killed JFK to cover up crimes like JFK, RFK, 9-11, 7-7, and other crimes. If you trust those guys, you'll never get far in this war of information. Watch this video to understand how the news agencies are simply deceiving us with propaganda: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=aac6KmdycsI 4. "Alleged"? Sorry, the cover up is not 'alleged'. It is thoroughly documented through the intimidation of witnesses, documentary evidence, and the accounts of people who were inside the plot itself (Jack Ruby, Chauncey Holt, E. Howard Hunt). 5. Why would the silence of the news require "everyone at every news agency" to be involved? A reporter doesn't report what they want. They are given what to report and if the big boys don't like something they report, the story is pulled. That's how the world of mainstream media works. The people at the top, which is very few, run everything, and yes, all of the people at the top of the news are 'in on it'. They're folks with agendas and they are put in place to control the flow of public information. 6. There have been news agencies that have covered the JFK conspiracy. Rolling Stone covered a CONFESSION from E. Howard Hunt: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...ward_hunt/print I suppose, though, that we should dismiss E. Howard Hunt, who is documented to have been in the CIA at the time, and was even paid $1,000,000 by an associate of George H.W Bush to keep quiet while he was in jail, on the grounds that he's "trying to dis-prove history". So, all of the Grassy Knoll witnesses are liars, all of the witnesses who said they were intimidated are liars, Marita Lorenz is a liar, Perry Russo is a liar, E. Howard Hunt is a liar, Chauncey Holt is a liar, every other person who has come public in saying that they were involved is a liar, all of the doctors in Dallas who examined Kennedy's body (and saw a large EXIT WOUND in the BACK of Kennedy's head) are liars. That's what people who believe the Warren fairytale need to believe. CIA: They are all liars. Yep, all of them. Every Dallas doctor, every one of the 35 Grassy Knoll witnesses, and every one of the many whistleblowers are all liars. By the way, I have a bridge on the moon that I could get you for an amazing price! :lol: There is no "Conspiracy Nut" in the JFK case. After all the evidence that has come out after 45 years, anyone who still hasn't figured out that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy is an "Anti-Conspiracy" Nut who refuses to see reality. Some have been fooled by deceptive writers such as Gerard Posner or Vincent Bugliosi, while others are just governmenthuggers who support the Iraq War and believes that it is impossible for the government to lie.