Pentagon lied about having 9/11 surveillance video then refused to release it


The media told us these frames should put conspiracy theories to rest. But do you see a Boeing 757? Notice incorrect date and time.

By Craig McKee

It’s one of the largest and most secure buildings in the world. It is the nerve centre for the U.S. military. It has hundreds of security cameras both inside and outside the building. But apparently you can fly an airliner into the side of it without being caught on tape.

That’s what I call a blind spot. But this is the story we are being asked to swallow about what happened at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. On a day of outrageous fabrications, this is one of the most absurd. What’s even more incredible is that some people – even some 9/11 truthers – accept it. (The plane hit the building, there are no videos, you are getting very sleepy…)

It wasn’t the first lie concerning the Pentagon “impact” and possible video evidence, however. Initially, the Pentagon denied having any video footage of the alleged impact of Flight 77. They would later change their tune and release five frames in 2002 taken from north of the alleged impact site.

The official story of 9/11 actually asks us to swallow a lot of impossible stuff: the collapse of the three towers because of “fire”; the failure of the military to intercept even one allegedly hijacked airliner; the burying of Flight 93 in a field in Pennsylvania; devout Muslims who take drugs and use prostitutes; a failed pilot who turned into Han Solo on the morning in question.

We know that an explosion – or series of explosions – did considerable damage to the newly renovated west side of the Pentagon that morning. And we know that what caused the explosion(s) goes to the heart of whether the supposed terrorist attacks were actually a government black op.

The government, the 9/11 Commission (same thing), and those who accept the official 9/11 story contend that the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 was flown into the building, killing 64 on board and another 125 in the building. Even some of those who believe 9/11 was an inside job are willing to embrace the “757 impact” theory. Those who dispute it are accused by these truthers of “splintering” the movement.

To believe the government’s account about the Pentagon, we’re supposed to accept that a 757 hit the building but wasn’t clearly caught on video tape doing so. That’s certainly the contention of 9/11 Commission executive director and then Bush administration insider Philip Zelikow who has stated that none of the 85 video tapes in the possession of the FBI show the plane.

So why can’t we see them?

There is also a version from the truthers who are devoting their lives to attacking the research of Citizen Investigation Team (which favours the plane flying over the Pentagon and not into it). They say that we’ll never get the evidence because the public allows the military the right to keep secrets.

In their recent attack on CIT and its north of Citgo flight path contention, researchers David Chandler and Jonathan Cole made this statement:

“The problem with focusing on a protest of the Pentagon cover-up is that the population at large attributes to the military the right to keep secrets. Secrecy in wartime is understandable, if it is in furtherance of military objectives. It is not reasonable that the military should be allowed to extend this privilege to the cover-up of evidence of a monstrous crime, but the fact is, they can get away with it. The population is not willing to second guess military prerogative in matters like this.”

Really? The public won’t second-guess the military? This is a reason to let crucial evidence remain secret?

Here’s some of what we know about the video surveillance evidence:

1.     The FBI has in its possession 85 video tapes from that day – some not belonging to the military – even though no tapes were initially admitted to.

2.     In 2002, five frames of video were released that did nothing to clear up the confusion. The frames showed a blur that appeared too small to be a 757 followed by a large explosion and fireball. The government contended that no other video existed. But that lie didn’t last.

3.     There were Freedom of Information Act requests for the surveillance video but they were denied. First, there were no tapes that corresponded to the requests, then there were but they couldn’t be released because of the legal case against Zaccarias Moussaoui, and finally they were deemed “exempt from disclosure” by the Department of Justice.

4.     In 2006, more video was released from the same angle as the 2002 frames. This did nothing to prove that a 757 had hit the building, instead just adding to the controversy.

Then there’s the issue of the confiscated tapes. Attendant Jose Velasquez from the Citgo gas station across the street from the Pentagon has stated that the FBI arrived within minutes of the Pentagon event and confiscated footage from the station’s surveillance camera. Velasquez was quoted as saying that the footage should have shown the alleged impact. In 2006, footage taken at the station was released showing nothing conclusive.

Other video footage was confiscated from the nearby Sheraton National Hotel, the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Va., and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Doubletree tape was later released. It showed the explosion but no airliner.

And what about the internal cameras from the Pentagon? We never hear about those. We know there was major damage and loss of life in the A wing, two wings deeper into the building than the C ring hole where the plane allegedly stopped. Wouldn’t this footage explain what happened in the A ring? But they don’t release it – or even acknowledge its existence.

And you believers don’t find this suspicious?

The 9/11 Commission could have subpoenaed any or all of the tapes in the government’s possession to clear up the question, but they didn’t. They clearly did not want to show us anything. And they got away with it.

It just strikes me that any reasonable person would agree that all tapes should be released. The idea that no cameras captured any images of the plane is just not credible. And we all have to stop making excuses for those who are continuing to lie to us.

I don’t know what the next move should be, but we have to keep demanding the release of this video until we get it. Without this evidence, I’ll never accept this bogus Flight 77 cover story. And neither should anyone else.

84 comments

  1. The Citgo surveillance tape may have some great footage of people pumping gas into vehicles, Craig. Have you asked the proprietors whether you can have a copy, since it’s probably been given back to them at this point? I’ve posted this here before, so please don’t accuse me of spamming, but I’m wondering how much of it you’ve read:
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2
    It’s a compilation of facts, not simply opinions, and it’s very well corroborated with links. 757 crashes in a place like that are kinda hard to fake, to put it mildly.

    1. Sorry, don’t get the Citgo comment. Are you saying people shouldn’t demand the video evidence? Jose Velasquez said he thought the tape would show the impact.

      Why aren’t there videos? Do you believe they don’t exist? If they showed us the evidence, wouldn’t that be positive for everyone? I’m “wondering” if you’ve got an explanation for this.

      1. hmm, there is only 1 thing wrong here, in your 2 pics of the pentigon, now the 2nd pic the “impact” pic, thats the original camera shot, but how come the 1st pic that says “plane” is not the original? how can i tell well im a video editing master, and the impact “2nd pic” has the camera guards showing at each corner, thats the fully zoomed out shot which seen about another frame extra then the first pic, now if you look at the first pic “plane” the pic is zoomed in a frame cuz you cant see the cam guard in each corner like the other one, lies lies lies, now i know for a fact cuz i’ve seen the real original video, in the very first frame you can see the plane entering the shot, but if you zoom that video in just a frame you will not see the plane! i know this for sure guys, and who knows maybe the pentigon didnt want to release the other videos cuz maybe alot of body’s are flying out the plane and maybe you can see people burned to deth, its not proffessional to show thats kind of stuff on tv, never, so cant blame them, i wish they did but cant blame them.

        1. Moron. I call bullshit on your credentials and analysis and spelling of ‘death’. How would burned bodies fly out of a plane before it crashes? Imbecile.

    2. Wow. How ironic this person acts like he knows the truth and researched it when obviously he knows nothing. The Citgo footage wasn’t doctored like the other videos? But really who cares about that footage when each side of Pentagon has 4 cameras on the roof. 2 on the corners and 2 in the middle. You have to be a huge blind idiot to believe a 757 hit the Pentagon.

      The amount of absurd coincidences on that 1 one day defies all logic. The fact that all 4 planes disintegrated would raise red flags with even the most retarded of thinkers, and yet America is full of morons. Of course they knew this. That’s why they got away with it telling such idiotic stories. I know of at least 8 cameras for sure caught it for sure, and1 right above and just 20 ft to the left of the impact.

      If it happened like these idiots say, then there should be no problems releasing the tapes. Instead of trying to pretend others are idiots, and argue with them, why don’t they just take it up with the Feds and ask them to release the tapes. That will solve everything? There’s nothing to hide, right? So go ahead smart people,… ask for the tapes!

      And when they say no, ask them why not! Of course idiots will probably believe whatever moronic excuse they give. You official story believers should be wondering why they are hiding them if there’s nothing to hide. We have seen everything, right? They didn’t even bother to investigate it, so all that bullshit about security is garbage. It wasn’t important enough to investigate so how much of a threat could it be to prove the questioners wrong?

      Good luck with that!! lol.

  2. Why do you think that the Pentagon is lying about the videos, Craig? There’s overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that AA 77 crashed there, no evidence of anything else, and surveillance cameras don’t shoot enough frames/second to get anything but a blur from an object moving at ~800 fps. If Jose Velasquez only “thought” the tape would show the impact, he’s probably never seen what the camera there is pointed at. Wouldn’t the proprietors be a lot more interested in looking at their pumps and other areas of their station than at the Pentagon? Have you spent any time at all looking at the 2 links I posted above? There’s way too much there to have faked, and if you think they did, which is completely impossible, why not just stick a fast-moving 757 into a surveillance video?

    1. You’re just restating what I’m asking. Why are they lying indeed? Perhaps you should try answering the question instead of re-asking it. Give me one good reason surveillance videos would not be released.

      You’re telling me that one of the most heavily defended buildings in the world can’t get an image of a plane flying right at it? My phone would take care of that task without difficulty, but the Pentagon hasn’t got the technology yet? Really Mr. Albury, surely you can do better than that.

      You keep saying that it would be impossible to fake this, but saying it often doesn’t make it so. The evidence is not irrefutable as you say. Why aren’t there photos of wreckage inside the building? Besides the rotor and the supposed landing gear we’ve all seen. Boy, they’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of those two photos.

      As to why they don’t just fake a video: there’d be chance the deception would be discovered, for one thing. And not releasing any tapes seems to have worked very well with people like you. What are you afraid those tapes would show? Why don’t you join me in demanding their release? No harm in that, eh?

      1. Asking me why someone’s lying is clearly begging the question, Craig, and your your “most heavily defended buildings” statement is specious as well. The Pentagon was no more heavily defended from AA 77 traveling at 500+ mph than it was from any of the numerous airliners that fly over it daily at low altitude to and from Reagan National Airport, which is <1 mile away from it, with a runway pointed right at its NE corner.
        More here:
        http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf
        That paper should also lay to rest anyone's mistaken belief that David Ray Griffin seriously researches his claims or corroborates them adequately. He hasn't recanted it, and makes too much selling his 9/11 malarkey to be embarrassed by anything, apparently.

        1. Perhaps heavily defended wasn’t the ideal way to put it. Perhaps secure would have been a better word. I was making no claim about a missile defence system; I just meant that surely there would have been a video record of Flight 77 approaching and hitting the building.

      2. I doubt whether Pentagon security depended very much on surveillance cameras the way stores and other businesses do, i.e. to get evidence of criminal activity. The cameras monitoring normal traffic at access and egress points aren’t fast enough to capture something going ~800 fps. You’re just stuck with a mountain of irrefutable evidence to fill the void, since there aren’t any other explanations for the sudden appearance of ~100 tons of flaming airliner wreckage inside a building. Tough break.😦

        1. You said I doubt. That is enough to discredit everything. You are doing nothing but assuming. And we all know what that means…

    2. Your missing the point I think Albury…Why would the government not just release the tapes they ‘didnt have’ and end all this nonsense then as you say. Please use logical deduction

    3. Because they are hiding 85 videos jackass. If they are willing to release that 1 then why not the rest. Why do you idiots question non-believers of bullshit stories? Why don’t question them and ask why they just won’t show them. There is no good reason to hide them all these years later. Oh wait… yes there is 1, and only 1. How smart do you have to be? lol

        1. Perhaps it could have been a plane after all; a smaller and more easily controllable one. This might be able to explain everything.

          If bombs were used to create the main hole in the façade, you would have a lot of brickwork being blasted into the lawn and highways.

          The damage does not seem consistent with a missile IMO, and the hole is crudely consistent with an airplane strike.

          I think what really happened is almost impossible to discern; there has been so much disinformation. I think it is better not to get too involved in the Pentagon theories since there is so much uncertainty. The case for the WTC is so much stronger.

  3. I’m becoming increasingly tired of reading about Craig Ranke and others “lying” about everything under the sun. I’m not big on censorship, but I will start refusing to publish things that I believe are just attacks and not intended to be constructive.

    If any person commenting feels someone has said something that is false, I invite them to point out how. But the word liar should be reserved for someone who is intentionally telling falsehoods. The key word there is intentionally. If you can’t demonstrate that it’s intentional, then use a different word. Thank you.

    1. I’ve seriously wondered at times whether people like Richard Gage are being deliberately dishonest or are just completely lost, Craig. Tower collapse videos, a stopwatch or just the timers on them, and a few minutes of careful observation are all that’s necessary to time their collapses to a reasonable degree of accuracy, yet he’s never wavered from his collapse time claims, which are significantly off and proof of nothing but structural failure and gravity. I’m sure I’ve posted this on here before, and hope you’ll take the ~3 minutes to view it:
      http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/39/qLShZOvxVe4

  4. I don’t think it makes any sense at all to ask the perpetrators to release video that they have controlled and sequestered for almost 10 years when there is already plenty of eyewitness and other evidence proving the plane did not hit, and therefore that the security video they have already released has been manipulated.

    Obviously if the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon they aren’t going to release video proving it. Given the definitive north side evidence uncovered by CIT it is not logical at all to demand that the government puts out more manipulated video supporting their lie.

    It’s worth nothing that there has clearly been a cover up of this and other evidence, but I fail to see the purpose in seeking data that only they have controlled since the attack. That would be like sending a murder suspect home with a vial and asking him to turn in a sample of his own DNA!

    1. I’m not sure you entirely got my point in bringing up the surveillance video. Of course they aren’t going to release video that conflicts with the official story that a 757 hit the Pentagon. But the fact that they won’t release video that they must surely have is indication they have something to hide. There’s no justification for them not releasing video – other than to avoid blowing the official story out of the water.

      I’m also not so worried about the prospect of faked video being released. First, if they felt that was advantageous, they’d have done it already. Second, this would become the most scrutinized piece of video in history. Any faking would have to be absolutely beyond detection. And as I said, if they had that capability we’d have seen the results.

      I think it’s important to hammer away at every point that lets them get away with the lies they’ve told us. Promoting the idea that video has been kept from the public helps new people to see that something is not right.

      1. As I said I agree that it’s a notable point to make that there has been a clear cover-up with regard to the video evidence. What I don’t agree with is this:

        “I don’t know what the next move should be, but we have to keep demanding the release of this video until we get it.”

        To do this falsely implies, 1. That we trust there is a possibility they will release non-manipulated videos, 2. That we don’t already have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane was north of the Citgo and therefore did not hit the light poles or the building.

        I also don’t agree with these points:

        “I’m also not so worried about the prospect of faked video being released. First, if they felt that was advantageous, they’d have done it already.”

        That’s a rather bold blanket assumption. They didn’t have a need to do it before. Now that there is more definitive evidence for a deception and that the cat is out of the bag regarding the north of the Citgo flight path it’s reasonable to suspect they may opt for a more drastic approach to counter this, particularly as attention to that evidence continues to grow.

        “Second, this would become the most scrutinized piece of video in history. Any faking would have to be absolutely beyond detection.”

        We know for a fact that the north side witnesses prove the perps manipulated the gate cam video as well as the Citgo video so clearly there is already a precedent for this. They wouldn’t even have to make a new video perfectly clear although I think it’s safe to say that they certainly DO have the technology to pull this off convincingly. I don’t think the fact that it would be heavily scrutinized by “conspiracy theorists” would be much of a concern to them and lord knows the mainstream media won’t scrutinize it.

        Again, they didn’t really have a motive for this before as the operation and the subsequent disinformation campaign (regarding missiles, global hawks etc) was rather successful. They very well could have and probably DO have a convincing faked video waiting to be released as soon as they deem it necessary. I wouldn’t be surprised if they came out with one very soon. This type of disinformation would not be a good thing for our cause so I personally don’t think it makes sense to “demand” that they put it out. More importantly I think it’s smart planning to make sure people understand this and move forward using the proper rhetoric to make this danger perfectly clear. Too many people in the movement quite often incorrectly suggest that the truth would come out if they released video. In reality this is completely illogical and nothing could be farther from the truth.

        1. You make a good point, but I guess I’m not very worried about them releasing faked video that will harm our cause. No matter how good the technology and no matter how good the fakery, it would open up more areas for the official story to crumble.

          For one, we’ve seen very ambiguous and unclear footage so far, and the claim has been made that there’s nothing else. Even Philip Zelikow is on record as saying that none of the 85 videos that they have show the plane. So to suddenly, after almost a decade, release video that shows a 757 hitting the building seems unlikely. Therefore demanding release of the video doesn’t seem that risky to me.

          I guess my bottom line is that it’s too good an opportunity to get through to ordinary, reasonable people because the refusal to release the video could be seen as unreasonable by almost anyone. It’s hard for the government to make a case that video either doesn’t show the plane or can’t be released because of national security.

          To stay quiet about the missing video seems like an opportunity wasted. And, as I said, if a new video would be so damaging to the Truth cause, why would they need pressure from us to go ahead and release it. I’m not sure they see the current situation (regarding evidence of the north path) as being so different for them. They’ve ignored the Truth movement on almost everything and the media is in line as you said. I just don’t see them suddenly feeling new pressure to act. I’d rather get the PR value out of challenging the government to do something it won’t do anyway.

      1. Craig,

        Yes it’s true that the FBI has said that none of the 85 videos show the “impact”, but if you can find it I’d really like to see the quote where “Philip Zelikow is on record as saying that none of the 85 videos that they have show the plane”. I haven’t seen that yet.

        However there is a master list of these “85 videos” and they were were confiscated from private corporations or individuals. The point being they don’t bother mentioning anything about the numerous surveillance cameras that we see around the Pentagon and the Navy Annex that we know would have to have caught something.

        Again, I am not saying that people should “stay quiet about the missing video”. I just think that when making the salient point that there has been a clear cover up of this evidence, that it’s important to always mention it in context of the fact that the eyewitnesses prove the video that they already have released has been manipulated, and that the evidence we already have proves that it is not logical to accept anything they do release as valid. It’s not necessarily the “danger” of our demands forcing them to release it that I’m concerned about, but rather that this is communicated properly in our information war so that when they DO release another manipulate video that we are more prepared to deal with such a counter-intelligence effort. I see too many people who act like the videos would solve the case if released and this is obviously false and the notion sets us up.

        I just don’t see it as wise to assume they won’t release one. I think it’s much more wise for us to assume that they WILL release one and move forward accordingly.

        Albury,

        Spamming deceptive links from jref will get you nowhere. Nobody has claimed the witnesses were “all in on it”. Obviously you are completely clueless as to what it is you are so desperately attempting to “debunk” here.

  5. Oh and by the way the Citgo security video was released back in 2006 about a week after CIT announced they had spoken with gas station employee Robert Turcios who saw the plane on the north side and then “pull up” over the highway.

    The manager of the Citgo station confirmed there was a camera on the north side of the gas station that was facing the alleged impact point. This view was manipulated out of the released video and according to the manager the entire camera was completely removed. CIT’s 2007 report on this is here: http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic8.htm

    1. In the interview with Mr. Turcios he said he saw the plane flying straight to the building and then he saw the fireball. He was asked if he saw the plane hitting and he said that no, it was obstructed. If you look at the view he has of the Pentagon, what was obstrucing his view of the plane? If the plane flew over the building then it would never go below the roof line of the building, it would always be sillouetted against the sky. Look at the Pilots for Truth animation where they show the plane flying towards the building and a big fireball erupting from the building. The plane never goes below the roof line of the building , the view of the plane is not obstructed by anything.

      1. Where ultimately did the plane come to the ground? Onlookers saw the plane fly until it became invisible by the cloud of smoke after explosion of the unknown projectile that came from another direction.

        Is there anyone who tried to draw the line of that projectile in the direction it came from? Was there a base in line that could have fired it?

        Is there a chance that the plane fell into the Pentagon?

        1. I’m more inclined to believe that explosives were placed in the Pentagon to give the illusion of a crash. I don’t believe Flight 77 hit the building, either the alleged impact point or closer to the centre of the building. The damaged doesn’t support this, and had it crashed into the centre area, we would have seen smoke there.

  6. Yes, A. Wright, it’s a major problem for CIT that they have not one credible witness who will say he or she saw the plane fly away. CIT needs someone on the ground in DC to turn up witnesses east of the Pentagon. They could canvas among dogwalkers, marina employees, marina tenants, freeway commuters, planespotters, airport limo drivers, bus drivers, bus riders, Pentagon employees, airport employees, park employees and fishermen for starters. They refuse to do it.

  7. regarding this post here: Here’s plenty of evidence that hasn’t been covered up, FFB:
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2
    Were all of the eyewitnesses named at those 2 links in on the plot? Another poster above said these pics are “deceptive” –I am confused. I do NOT believe in the official conspiracy but must admit I feel I must be missing something when someone shows supposed pics OF a plane crash, and othes in the truth movement claim they are deceptive. Obviously I want to know what is meant by that as I have started a thread recently about the black woman who claims to be a witness of the Pentagon attack, actually being in the building and affected by the explosion and says went out the exit of the hole and saw no metal, seats, luggage. When i mentioned this the debunker posted the same images the links here show plus one that shows the remains of a human body strapped to a chair.

    So I am welcome to thoughts about this please?

    1. No, I would not accuse all the witnesses of being in on anything. But does this mean that witnesses weren’t planted to support the official lie?

      There are a number of problems with eyewitness testimony. Without trying to deal with each witness individually, there are people who claim to have almost been hit by the plane such that they had to duck. This was allegedly a 757 going 550 mpg and six feet or less above the ground? And none of these people were thrown off their feet by the force of the air being displaced?

      There are also people who say the wing hit the ground in the area of the helicopter pad. At least one other says the engines of the plane dragged on the ground (although the Pentagon lawn was undamaged).

      Your link refers to a Pentagon tower chief as being a witness. If this was the person who was in the Pentagon tower as the plane allegedly approached the building, then he also said the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo gas station. This is incompatible with the light pole evidence. Are all the north of Citgo witnesses lying or wrong? If they’re not wrong, then the light pole evidence had to have been staged.

      As for the dead bodies, where’s the proof that these bodies were there and that they corresponded to passengers from Flight 77? Yes, Mark Williams says he saw them, but is that all we have to do on? Why can’t even ONE piece of wreckage be positively tied to Flight 77?

      Then you have USA Today’s Mike Walter and his explanation of the wings “folding in.” I flat out don’t believe him. And I don’t believe that wings would fold in without leaving clear damage to the facade of the building. Why was there no folding at the World Trade Center? Yes, the Pentagon was reinforced to withstand some kind of attack, but how did the plane penetrate so far while the wings seem to make no dent at all.

      This whole event was an illusion, a deception. Just adding up the witnesses as if you’re conducting an opinion poll doesn’t prove anything. These accounts are important, but they have to be considered along with the physical evidence.

      And finally, if a 757 hit the Pentagon, why don’t they release the video. The Pentagon has something like 85 different views from its own cameras of the event. If they backed up the official story, we’d have seen them by now.

  8. But I was mostly meaning the actual photographs shown in the second link? Are THESE deceptive? I mean IF they are flase where is the evidence they are false? How can I respond to a debunker if he shows these pics as proof they prove official conspiracy theory? Is there any source which debunks then adequately I should know about?

    Where you say “Why can’t even ONE piece of wreckage be positively tied to Flight 77?” Where is the evidence for that statement. I am serious because i need this for my refutation of this guy who questions truth movement.

    1. Maybe you can provide me with the specific link for the photos of bodies, because I can’t find them in your link (not having opened each one of the many links on that page).
      Nevertheless, I don’t think a photo of a body in an airplane seat proves anything. Keep in mind, I’m contending that this was a massive covert government operation. Coming up with a fake photo of bodies would be the easiest part of the deception. It’s not up to the Truth movement to prove the photos don’t show real 9/11 victims, it’s up to the government to prove they are. They haven’t.

      As for my contention about airplane parts, there are numerous parts on a plane that are marked with serial numbers that positively tie them to a particular aircraft. No part has been produced that ties any parts to any of the four alleged hijacked planes. Again, the onus is on the government to prove the parts did come from these flights, not the other way around. If parts had been positively linked, we’d have that information by now.

      Why not ask the person you’re discussing this with to explain why the 85 videos aren’t released? Can anyone seriously believe that the most heavily defended building in the world would not be able to capture in incoming plane on one of its many surveillance cameras? The idea is ridiculous.

    2. Dear Mr. Juliano,

      I agree with Mr. McKee’s take on this that the onus was on the US Govt to definitely make their case. They did not. They spent a lot of time distracting us (e.g., Anthrax, WMD, Iraq, housing bubble, your job, your mortgage, your patriotism) and making strawman arguments (e.g., “well if you saw planes on TV hitting the towers, it must have been planes hitting the Pentagon and Shanksville.”)

      I could be wrong in my orders of magnitude and my recollection. With this caveat, I understand that a commercial jet has some millions of parts, of which many hundreds of thousand are serial numbered and uniquely identifiable to a specific aircraft.

      No (or paultry few) airplane parts at any of the four “crash sites” have been provided by the govt to definitively link them to the exact planes reported to have been involved. Moreover, a couple of these alleged planes weren’t scheduled to fly that day; a couple of the planes were listed as “in-service” years after 9/11. The supposedly recovered crash boxes have issues, like showing how the cockpit door was never opened.

      What I find funny is that every time they talk about the planes flying at ~500 mph on impact or when calculations from the pixel imagery of the WTC plane puts their speed at such, we are faced with a major contradiction both to the flying skills of the supposed pilots as well as the structural integrity of the plane. ~500 mph was the maximum rated speed of the aircraft at high altitude with minimal air resistance. Pilots for 9/11 Truth tell us that such speeds at near sea level (a) would be extremely hard to control even by an experienced pilot and (b) would encounter so much air resistance that those light, aluminum commercial planes would be torn apart in the air. (It may or may not be related, but in the past I’ve seen discussion of a hijacked Egyptian plane in this 9/11 context. Those hijackers supposedly did a nose-down dive from on high. The plane broke apart before hitting the water.)

      In this context when people say that “photos of airplane wreckage are deceptive”, the meaning is broad. The photos amassed together do not show comprehensive amounts of debris; photos from the inside the Pentagon? Hell, in my almost 10 years of studying this, I have only seen about two (shock) photos from inside that supposedly showed a couple of aircraft seats with two (or three) charred bodies still strapped in. Due their shock value, no other images were shown. Such images, though, would have been easy to stage and fake anywhere.

      Regarding the Jahoo who questions the truth movement, let this be a clue to an agenda. Yes, the truth movement has been infiltrated and led astray; gatekeepers are in place on most forums dedicated to 9/11 to suppress certain theories. In particular, video forgery (ala “no planes”) and exotic weapons (ala milli-nukes or DEW). Bad actors do their best to build up a bogus theory so that it can be purposely shot down later and sink lots of valid evidence as well. In the case of the two topics mentioned, though, the bad actors can’t address the evidence, so attack the messenger with the “kookiest of loony accusations about the nut proposing it.” Such attacks can stick when the truth lies in math and science beyond the education (or research interest) of the mainstream audience. Dr. Woods has suffered from this, yet the fact remains that she presents lots of evidence that no other theory will address with a 10-foot pole.

  9. Why don’t they release the videos? To make the point that they don’t have to, that it’s none of our business. And maybe to set people up to engage in a whole lot of wheelspinning theorizing, people who can all be made to look very foolish simply by releasing a few videos?

    Juliano, Ken Jenkins explained to me years ago why he gave up on Pentagon research. He said he was just flipflopping, agreeing with the most recent person that spoke, and recognized that none of the evidence can be trusted because it all comes from the military. So it’s hopeless.

    So Senor Once will tell us that Sgt. Williams is lying and the pictures are fake because he doesn’t want to believe them. But Sgt. Lagasse is telling the truth and the ASCE BPAT report are telling the truth because he wants to believe them. Selective skepticism leads to self-deception and isolation.

    1. I find the concept amazing that a Boeing 757 is supposed to have hit the Pentagon in broad daylight and we can’t question what happened because the military holds all the cards. How exactly is any government conspiracy going to be uncovered if we take that approach?

      If they wanted to make people look foolish they’d have done it by now. Are they waiting some new wacky theory to come out so they can go, “A ha!”? How would that make any difference? The fact that they don’t release the videos indicates that there aren’t any videos that show what they want us to believe.

      We can’t depend on thermite to carry the weight of the Truth movement’s belief that 9/11 was an inside job. Apparently they found thermite in the WTC dust; has that blown the case wide open? No. We need to go after all aspects of the official story.

    2. Dear Mr. Good wrote:

      “So Senor Once will tell us that Sgt. Williams is lying and the pictures are fake because he doesn’t want to believe them. But Sgt. Lagasse is telling the truth and the ASCE BPAT report are telling the truth because he wants to believe them. Selective skepticism leads to self-deception and isolation.”

      Don’t be putting words into my mouth. At this point in time, I don’t know who Sgt. Williams or Sgt. Lagasse are and what either of them might be “lying about.”

      In addition, that is a mighty confusing paragraph. Who does “he” refer to with the phrase: “he doesn’t want to believe them (the pictures)?” Me or Sgt. Williams? Likewise, who is “he” with the phrase: “he wants to believe them?” Me or Sgt. Lagasse? If either of them refer to me, then again you are making unfounded speculation.

      You did make a couple of other statements that at first I thought I’d have to rake over the coals.

      Why don’t they release the videos? To make the point that they don’t have to, that it’s none of our business. And maybe to set people up to engage in a whole lot of wheelspinning theorizing, people who can all be made to look very foolish simply by releasing a few videos? … Ken Jenkins explained … why he gave up on Pentagon research. He … recognized that none of the evidence can be trusted because it all comes from the military.

      Yes, I do believe you are correct that they didn’t release the videos precisely to make the point that they didn’t have to, but not in the sense of legal and moral obligation (which remain), but in the sense that the military-industrial-media complex is the deciding entity and not the administration, a legislative commission, the courts, the ballot box, or citizens protest groups.

      The phrase “that it’s none of our business” is a bit of a stretch. It truly is our business and we should more forcefully make it our business. This phrase is presented as more of a command: “think what we tell you.”

      Military indoctrination has always been: “leave nobody behind; protect and defend your brother soldier on and off the battlefield; covering the ass of your superiors can be the road to advancement.”

      Once the military-industrial complex decided that it wanted to go to war with Iraq by way of Afghanistan, as outlined by PNAC, and with war being the pre-occupation and training of all good soldiers, it is in keeping with their brotherhood mottos for military individuals and groups to jump on the bandwagon, taint the evidence, so that wars can be waged.

  10. “Juliano, Ken Jenkins explained to me years ago why he gave up on Pentagon research. He said he was just flipflopping, agreeing with the most recent person that spoke, and recognized that none of the evidence can be trusted because it all comes from the military. So it’s hopeless.

    So Senor Once will tell us that Sgt. Williams is lying and the pictures are fake because he doesn’t want to believe them. But Sgt. Lagasse is telling the truth and the ASCE BPAT report are telling the truth because he wants to believe them. Selective skepticism leads to self-deception and isolation.”

    This is VERY interesting. So what your pointing to is further psy op going on here of course. You know when 9/11 happened I have personally been through a few phases I would like to share. I saw the explosions in NYC on the news and thought at first I was seeing a film. Then it dawned and I believed the OCT. Then I was to get more online and started reading info that mainstream media was not addressing. Quote a bit later, I started seeing videos that were arguing a no planes theory. At first i was real angry and would let them know it, but something disuaded me from my position and I then went overboard really apologizing for being so blind, and I became part of that, and would get caught up with seeing others in the truth movement as being deliberatle misleading because they were promoting real planes.
    Not being a video expert, many of the videos which explained what we were seeing couldn’t be true SEEMED very convincing, but being an artist I also know how tricky perspective can be. But I was in a limbo of being convinced of some of these videos but at the same time having doubt because I was no video expert.

    having disentangled myself from NPT I still yet think that there WAS TV trickery going on—that some people took over media and have done things. Here is one example–what are you thoughts about this: 9/11 Ball Theory Exposes Mainstream Media – part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcU6uc1vh0

    I am not trying to change subject, because we are focusing on the Pentagon here, which is complex enough. But if we analyze the psy op we may see different levels of it applies to each event–the Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville—they all are meant it seems to befuddle both perceptually, audially, via witnesses, and also the authorities withholding needed evidence, and getting rid of it.

    I also take very seriously the occultist clues all over 9/11 which I think cut right through the more mundane confusion and show the real fingerprints of the culrpits–but I very much understand if you dont want to go *there* lol.

    What I would personally welcome is a time line analysis of what we have including all clues regarding the different events–in this case the Pentagon. Put the alternative theories in categories vs the official story. Then welcoming feedback we can have our OWN PUBLIC inquiry–it will be like a wikipedia with all known evidence in one place

  11. OK, I took the advice from here to ask this debunker this question:

    why are the 85 videos not released?

    Can anyone seriously believe that the most heavily defended building in the world would not be able to capture an incoming plane on one of its many surveillance cameras?

    He comes back with this:

    why are you asking me, I have no idea how many videos there are, for all I
    know you could have pulled that number from your ass, if they havent been
    released and are so super secret then how do you know how many there are?

    why not ask the FBI why they havent been released, why not make a request
    for the videos if they do in fact exist, are you under the impression that
    they actually show something when a camera from ‘the most heavily defended
    building in the world’ barely caught a glimpse because like most vdeo
    cameras it captures less than 15 frames per second with a real time video
    camera capturing a mere 30 frames per second

    hell, why not actually answer a question or two yourself

    here’s a question for you, what defenses does the pentagon have that
    makes it the most protected building in the world? just answer this one “

    1. I’m not impressed by your uninformed friend. He seems like the type who will fight this regardless of the facts. This might be a losing battle for you.
      However, here’s a link that might help with the 85 videos. We know there were 85 videos because the FBI has admitted it. There have been Freedom of Information cases over them. They even claim that none of them shows any impact. But they won’t release them regardless.

      Here’s the link to confirm the number of withheld videos: http://infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

      As for his “15-frame per second” point, please. The Pentagon, the nerve center of the most sophisticated military in the world, can’t capture an incoming airplane because its cameras aren’t fast enough? Is he saying that if someone were to stand there with a commercially available video camera they couldn’t record an incoming 757? The alleged plane was coming towards the building and towards the cameras, not left to right across their range of vision. Tell him to get real.

      And he wants to dispute whether the Pentagon is heavily defended? Totally disingenuous. There have been differing claims about the Pentagon having a missile defense system, but even if that’s not true it’s still (along with the White House) the most sensitive building in the country. Tell him to stop nitpicking.

      Here are a couple of answers you can give him about the Pentagon.
      1) The Flight Data Recorder animation released by the government for Flight 77 shows that it was too high to hit the building. The FDR also showed that the cockpit door never opened during the flight, making it tricky for “hijackers” to take over the plane.
      2) Tell him that the alleged hijacker/pilot, Hani Hanjour was denied rental of a small Cessna a month before 9/11 because he was such a bad pilot. But a month later he pilots a 757 for the first time into the one part of the building that had the fewest people because it was being renovated. He had to go out of his way to avoid hitting the easiest target: Donald Rumsfeld’s office. Hanjour managed to hit the first floor of the building without causing any damage to the lawn at all.
      3) The wings and tail of the plane did no apparent damage to the wall of the Pentagon; windows where the tail should have hit were not even broken.

      This is just a hint of all the information that contradicts the official story. There’s so much more. If your friend is saying things like, “Why are you asking me?” then he probably isn’t worth the time because he won’t give your facts a sincere consideration.
      Keep asking questions and learning more. There’s conflicting info out there but start with what can’t be true about the official story and go from there. You’re on the right track.

    2. Dear Mr. Juliano,

      Knowing who someone is (spiritually), what their agenda is, or to whom their alleigence is are important aspects of “knowing your audience” and adjusting your presentation accordingly.

      Your debate opponent has many characteristics of a govt agent. No need to call him that in public, but your recognition of this can help you in expressing your position. For example, you won’t ever convince this person, so the true audience for your words should be the lurkers (both present-day and future) of the forum. Calling him on his tactics won’t stop him from repeating it, but will disarm the hypnosis such tactics may have at being convincing to the lurker audience.

      One such tactic of your debate opponent is to create busy work for you to run along and do, which he will then promptly ignore and claim as irrelevant once (or if) you deliver.

      “How should I know how many videos there are; you tell me?… Oh, 85, you say? Well why don’t you get an FOIA request with the FBI for them. Once you have them and viewed them, then we can discuss them, and I’ll be provided by that time the talking points on how I should address/ignore this. I’m not serious in searching for truth, but in kicking up sand into the lurker-readers’ eyes to delay their personal revelation of what the 9/11 truth is closer to.”

      Another tactic is to avoid answering your questions while posing more (busy work questions) of his own. In this case, he didn’t venture to speculate on why the videos weren’t released, yet wants to have you spin your wheels in talking about Pentagon defenses.

      Many options exist in handling this. Point out that he didn’t answer the question you asked, and put the discussion on topic by answering your own original question. Then you can turn the tables on his question by saying “a good lawyer doesn’t ask questions he doesn’t already know the answer to; so what defenses do you speculate the Pentagon had on 9/11?” And as it turns out, any answer at all — radar monitoring, 85 video cameras on the outside, re-enforced concrete walls, speed-dial to pilots in Air Force jets warmed up on runways — will prove the Pentagon better protected that 99.99999% of the buildings in the world.

  12. Update of the Pentagon ‘debate’–which actually is boiled down to two mods throwing their weight about threateningly and accusingly to ‘answer the question—stop trolling’. I will name one P and other J:
    I originally asked what a member here had advised:

    A good lawyer doesn’t ask questions he doesn’t already know the answer to; so what defenses do you speculate the Pentagon had on 9/11?”

    And as it turns out, any answer at all — radar monitoring, 85 video cameras on the outside, re-enforced concrete walls, speed-dial to pilots in Air Force jets warmed up on runways — will prove the Pentagon better protected than 99.99999% of the buildings in the world.

    And this is what they responded with:

    J: (referring to this previous question also inspired from this message board: Can anyone seriously believe that the most heavily defended building in the world would not be able to capture an incoming plane on one of its many surveillance cameras?

    The idea is absurd.) he says:

    How many times do you dodge/equivocate before addressing a clear question about your claims? If you just made that up, then retract it. If you actually believe what you said, then answer the question.

    (and to this: a good lawyer doesn’t ask questions he doesn’t already know the answer to; so what defenses do you speculate the Pentagon had on 9/11?”)

    Shifting the burden of proof or just dodging again? Either way, Pris didn’t make the claim, you did.

    (and to this: And as it turns out, any answer at all — radar monitoring, 85 video cameras on the outside, re-enforced concrete walls, speed-dial to pilots in Air Force jets warmed up on runways — will prove the Pentagon better protected than 99.99999% of the buildings in the world.)

    85 cameras, reinforced concrete walls and jets in the vicinity’s air base? That’s pretty much every building in the vicinity of an airbase in the country. Pretty much all concrete walls are reinforced, and security cameras are routine. How do you figure these make the pentagon the best protected out of ten million given buildings?

    More to the point, why are you now equivocating and changing your claim from “most heavily defended building in the world” to “better than one in ten million given world building”? Hell, you might even be right about the later, depending on what you consider a “building”, but that isn’t what was asked.

    P: cameras provide no defense, jet’s on the runway are fucking useless when
    the threat is in the air and do you even know what a reinforced concrete
    wall is? can you explain it just a little since you refuse to answer
    questions and instead just troll anyone that does ask a legitimate question

    J: lol, I’ve got a reinforced concrete wall in my garage, and I have an air force base in the area. I guess if I put up some cameras I’ll have the most heavily defended building in the world

    P: Yeah, its a classic response. They can’t back up their claims so instead they switch the topic to a totally fabricated argument and start to criticize it. It doesn’t seem to bother them that they’re arguing against themselves. I guess it beats having to reply to questions and back up what you say when your full of crap.

    This strawman nonsense is pretty much the conspiracy theory calling card. Its among the most popular responses, along with dodging, equivocating, and changing the topic to something else (like zzripz has demonstrated here numerous times when he was asked simple questions and he just brings up another point or asks a question of his own without even acknowledging the question asked of him)

    1. Juliano,

      I think these two are either being deliberately mischievous or they’re absolute idiots. I really don’t think there’s much point in engaging them further. If they want to fight over whether the Pentagon is a well-defended building then they have no interest in the truth.

      If a plane flew into your local Wal Mart, I’m sure one of their many surveillance cameras would have caught the impact. But someone the Pentagon’s technology doesn’t match up to a department store? Silly.

      There are a million reasons why the Pentagon official story can’t be true. I’ve written about a lot of them and so have many others. People who just mock the idea of conspiracy theories are arrogant and misguided at best. You’ll have an impossible time trying to convert them.

      But keep reading and learning. The better you get to know the facts, the better you’ll be able to deal with idiots and with people who are open to hearing what you have to say.

      1. Correct! but what do WE do? 911 was just the platform for citizen control and they have fully completed their mission. Good God I’m a Republican Christian Conservative having to come to terms with these facts while married to an American soldier and I can promise you there’s no such thing as separation of powers here but This is not a message openly recieved in a small town farm community.

  13. Well they are both moderators who ‘police’ the ‘Conspiracies and Cover-ups’ forum at The Shroomery forums. They will intimidate people who try and explore exactly what the forum is supposed to be about, with the BS you can clearly see. They make no sense at all, and just continue to accuse people of not answering their pathetic ‘questions’. So you are most likely right that either one or two of them are some kind of government agents (not sure if it was you who said this)

    1. I was having trouble following your re-posting of P & J. A link to the ‘Conspiracies and Cover-ups’ forum at The Shroomery forums would have been enlightening. Having found it with google and read through it, your experience makes more sense.

      Unfortunately, it doesn’t change my opinion much. They can still turn out to be jokers who just want to inspire and feed controversy and discussion, preferably in the weeds. The last thing jokers or agents want is rational discussion.

      Want to drive them crazy? Ignore them. Talk around them. Keep making your case as if they don’t exist. Don’t address them by name; use third-party vagueness, e.g. “Some people are prone to say X, Y, Z…” In this round-about way you can address some things they bring up and completely side-step other nonsense. Let them throw a wheel in their little games “why don’t you answer my question?”

      If that forum permitted subscriptions, I’d be more inclined to lurker follow and participate.

      Viveka wrote:

      What about the 64 people aboard Flight 77. Were they all just made up?

      You should answer this directly with something like:

      Yes! Exactly! Most of the 64 on Flight 77 probably were “just made up!” Made-up SimVictims is not anything new and is even covered in Operation Northwood from the JFK era, but with the caveat that social media now makes it so much easier to generate false legends, albeit with the caveat that close scrutiny can poke (and has poked) holes in them.

  14. Mr P confesses: “I’ve some experience in construction and demolition, in all honesty for a few years i thought exactly as most other truthers did, and while there is a conspiracy here it’s not quite what has been espoused by the truth movement. The feds had prior knowledge, they did nothing to prevent it, the FBI made the claim that it wasn’t within their scope to investigate it. This event could have been prevented and it wasn’t for what ever reason. It’s not a false flag but it’s certainly an act of heinous criminal negligence that I believe warrants prosecution for treason as well as mass murder.”

    What do you make of this reasoning?

    1. I’m not sure what facts this person bases their beliefs upon. The “let it happen on purpose” theory suggests that somehow the Bush administration learned about the al-Qaeda attack and decided to let it happen to further its foreign and domestic policy agendas.

      I don’t buy it. This theory assumes that the hijackings and the plane takeovers were all real and allowed to happen. This leaves way too many loose ends and unanswered questions.

      • How did the alleged hijackers pull off extremely difficult (if not impossible) manoeuvres when they had trouble flying Cessnas.
      • How did they take over the planes when there’s no sign that cockpit doors were opened or that hijack codes were dialled by the pilots
      • How can the lack of wreckage and lack of Pentagon damage be accounted for if Flight 77 really did hit?
      • How did the twin towers fall unless there were explosives already in the building?
      • Where is the wreckage of Flight 93?

      And there are dozens more. No, I don’t believe this negligence theory or the let it happen on purpose theory come anywhere close to explaining the suspicious events of 9/11.

    2. This is SimVic’s will eventually come into play. They’ll say;

      Ah, ha! The joke’s on you! No one was murdered on 9/11. They were either witness-relocated or simulated victims from the onset, otherwise none of us would have entered into the conspiracy. (Although maybe one or two real victimes slipped in. But we all agree that we wanted war! We wanted Iraq’s oil fields, Afghanistan’s heroin, and a gas pipeline right-of-way! Plus we wanted to screw with nations, because we can. And we knew Americans are so duped by their own red-white-and-blue propaganda, they’ll march to anything if we pull the Goebbel’s trick of “telling the peasants we were attacked.”

      Because the banking elite profited so well, they clearly may have out-sourced some of the dirty work to Israel and the military industrial complex. Given that they owned the WTC, their lawyers are going to argue that bombing their own property isn’t treasonous or a false-flag. Get rid of the old to make way for the new. They’ll make up some crap how it provided work for New Yorkers and rejuvenated a part of the city that was rather stale. The SimVictims make it less a heinous criminal charge but a stupid prank. “You’ve been punked! You’re all so damn gullible!”

      You should have Mr. P’s substantiate his claim that: “The feds had prior knowledge, they did nothing to prevent it, the FBI made the claim that it wasn’t within their scope to investigate it.”

      Not that you can’t do this yourself maybe even off of the top of your head, but this is an example of busy work both to annoy and self-educate your opponent.

  15. Sorry Senor El Once, I missed seeing your post above. So you have had a look there? Good. It is very easy to subscribe to.
    P, and J do use mischievous tactics. and one big one from prisoner is ‘ANSWER my question!’ when he ignores yours. There has been a subject change at the moment from Pentagon to WTC7–I could protest seeing it is my thread but they make up the rules as they go along anyway. They will cream ‘troll’ at those who contradict them but allow themselves and others of their worldview to get away with murder. lol
    Very interesting advice you give. Often I want to do that, but am very aware that their tactics scare off many who would use the forum for what it is intended for–ie., it is not called ‘defending the official story of 9/11: it was NOT a false flag…RIGHT??!’—But it is good advice to skirt round them.

  16. I posted this:
    Question: why did they destroy the EVIDENCE?!

    FirefightersFor911TRUTH.org – Erik Lawyer – Press Conference

    of COURSE it was a false flag already!!

    and got this:

    Why should I answer your question? You have never answered one of mine.

    Sheesh, anyway…You’re asking why did they rapidly ship away the building and other debris from the site? Gee, I dunno, maybe because it was located in the financial mecca of the US if not the world and there are people and vehicle traffic that need to flow through the area unimpeded? Should they have just left all the debris strewn all over the place until every last armchair internet conspiracy theorist was satisfied?

    To the majority of people at the site it was pretty clear why the building collapsed. There was no need for a major big deal criminal investigation of WTC7 collapse because all the causative factors were identified by hundreds of people at the scene while it was happening. What about that don’t you understand?

    The guy in your video is a big blowhard. (He cites Steven Jones for fuck sake, has that guy not yet been discredited in your book?) Then he says they have 118 first responders that reported explosions. You can see these clips if you go here. But it’s just a collection of anecdotes about someone experiencing a loud “explosion”. Yeah, there were all sorts of huge energy transfer events, secondary explosions, why wouldn’t there be in such a huge high-rise disaster? Is the guy in your video asserting that these accounts of explosions are evidence of the controlled demolition of WTC7? LOfuckingL man, just LOL. So some random explosion goes off and three hours later WTC7 collapses, wow, that’s a curious sort of clandestine demolition. They can set off the charges hours before the building collapses, amazing technology this shadow gov’t has!

    Then he quotes the “stud”(the retired FDNY Lt.) who characterizes WTC7 as “not hit by an aircraft with only a few relatively small fires” and that it went “straight into its basement”. I’m sure you’re reading that going, “Yep, that all accurate” and that is why I’m wondering why I am bothering right now. It’s not accurate, it’s a misrepresentation of the events, I’ve proven this to you in this very forum before and you didn’t respond to it then. ”

    the ‘question’ he is referring to –his user name is Viveka (and he seems to suggest he is an architect) http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14814378/fpart/4/vc/1

    So he is trying to claim that the quick destruction of evidence is acceptable to keep the flow of commerce going in that area of NYC doesn’t he?

    1. My strong advice to you is to end your correspondence with this person right away. He is clearly unable, or unwilling, to see basic sense. WTC was a crime scene. You don’t haul away the evidence from the biggest crime scene in American history just so you can improve local traffic. It’s absurd. I don’t believe this guy is sincere. Drop the asshole, and movie on to other more productive exchanges.

    2. Dear Mr. Juliano,

      I’ve been out to the forum and saw the response in context. It hardly seems worth it all. Mr. McKee is right. But I’ve been infected in the past with the desire to address falsehoods with truth, so I know where you are coming from. If you can’t be dissuaded from such foolhardy debates, then read on.

      Here’s some tactical advice. First of all, write off-line in an editor. Could be as brain-dead as Notepad or Word. (Save your work locally, and include a link within that file to the source forum.)

      Second, know the formatting mechanisms of the forum and use that syntax extensively to make perfectly clear what they wrote and what you wrote. Be anal about it. That forum uses a square bracket type syntax; this one accepts some limited HTML. [When you post stuff from that forum here, please put a <blockquote></blockquote> around the sucker so Mr. McKee’s audience can follow it.]

      Third, break down your opponent’s message line by line. Meaning, quote a line from them using the forum formatting, then tear it apart. Quote another line using the forum formatting, then tear it apart. There might be throw-away sentences from your opponent that you can either leave out or tack at the beginning of a sentence or phrase that you’re going to rake over the coals.

      The point is that more effective use of the medium can literally highlight their lies and why they are so. Not to do too much of your work for you (and please put into your own words or arguments), but here is some low-hanging fruit to get you started (with my example formatted for this forum).

      [“You” below is directed at the opponent.]

      Viveka wrote:

      Gee, I dunno, maybe because [the building and other debris from the site] was located in the financial mecca of the US if not the world and there are people and vehicle traffic that need to flow through the area unimpeded.

      You’re right. You don’t know, and your guessing reflects it.

      The financial mecca of the US is electronic and is housed in redundant data backup centers in geographically dispersed locations. This is proven by the financial markets being back on line and in business the week after 9/11 — when the SEC removed trading restrictions and billions of illicit funds were laundered.

      Moreover, the WTC area is a penisula or island with bridges connecting it to other parts of the the city where the loading docks and airports are. Thus, your reasoning for why evidence was rapidly shipped away — “people and vehicle traffic needing to flow through the area unimpeded” — is just you grasping at straws and kicking up sand.

      Viveka wrote:

      Should they have just left all the debris strewn all over the place until every last armchair internet conspiracy theorist was satisfied?

      I would have settled for the satisfaction of, say, Fire Inspectors/Investigators, who vigorously complained (to the limits of holding their jobs) about the destruction of evidence, as did many other professions.

      Did you see the videos of the legions of dump trucks filing into WTC on 9/11? Or of the mayor proudly proclaiming how many dump trucks had been filled on 9/11? No. From minute one, they most certainly were not going to leave “all the debris strewn all over the place” precisely to prevent “professional conspiracy theorists” (ala Arson Investigators, Insurance Fraud Investigators, Terror Attack Investigators, etc.) from learning something.

      Viveka wrote:

      To the majority of people at the site it was pretty clear why the building collapsed.

      Because the official story down to Osama bin Laden and jet fuel fires weakening steel was fleshed out and broadcast from the earliest moments of the “disaster” and repeated endless on television like a fresh O.J. Simpson or Michael Jackson scandal.

      Maybe your slip of the fingers in typing “why” instead of “how” is revealing. The majority of the people at the site and observing the totality of the destruction, the pulverization of content, and the lack of recognizable office debris most certainly weren’t clear on “how the towers were destroyed.” Some thought it was nukes, but then why were they even alive?

      However, when they heard the war drums on corporate media and certainly the outcome of the Afghanistan invasion (e.g., military bases popping up along the proposed natural gas pipeline that the Taliban had previously refused, resurgance of poppies for heroin that the Taliban forbid) and the Irai invasion (massive bases in Iraq as a permanent military presense in the Middle East to replace the Saudi bases they closed, shutting down of Iraqi oil to give Saudi suppliers the benefit of price increases) and the massive amounts of flagrant war profiteering, then yes, it became pretty clear to a majority of the people in the US “why the building collapsed.”

      Viveka wrote:

      There was no need for a major big deal criminal investigation of WTC7 collapse because all the causative factors were identified by hundreds of people at the scene while it was happening.

      Bravo! Brav-oh! Pulled that one out of your ass, did you?

      And what would “all the (identified) causative factors” be for the destruction of WTC-7?

      Debris from the airplanes? WTC-7 was on fire before either tower collapsed. Just make a note of the floors on which these fires were. The floors on fire did not change significantly with either tower collapse.

      Debris from the collapsing towers? Too bad the video and pictorial evidence — like the NIST footage now released but suppressed for 9 years — doesn’t show significantly more damage. Now the crater in WTC-6? That is a different story.

      The diesel fuel generators? Too bad that the authorities have ruled this out as being capable of launching the 47 story WTC-7 into 8 stories of free-fall.

      Viveka wrote:

      So some random explosion goes off and three hours later WTC7 collapses, wow, that’s a curious sort of clandestine demolition.

      More likely, a clandestine demolition gone wrong. They really, really, really wanted WTC-7 destroyed, because with it goes the SEC records and all sorts of investigations get stopped. Pay-back to many a Bush financial backer in trouble.

      Viveka wrote:

      They can set off the charges hours before the building collapses, amazing technology this shadow gov’t has!

      Although I imply that the delay in WTC-7 destruction was an accident, an operation gone wrong, it could also have been by design.

      “We, the perpetrators from elite circles, can do what ever we want whenever we want and tell you whatever we want; and through sheer repetition and control of the media, we’ll get you to believe it. You’ll watch with slack jaw as commissions and investigations are hijacked, court cases thrown out, and the media bangs war drums while labeling anything contrary as unpatriotic, kooky, loony, and crazy.

      +++++++++++

      So, Mr. Juliano, I could go on, but I won’t. It’s your battle.

      The summary of the above is that you can’t leave big blocks of disinformation hanging. You have to take them on and tear them apart sentence by sentence. Whereas the little diddy regarding “how” versus “why” might seem unfair, it forces your opponent to be accurate and truthful. If he doesn’t raise his game in response, he’ll continually get his ass handed to him.

      Hope this helps.

    3. Damn it, Mr. Juliano… Now you got me started.

      Professional disinformation agents know the truth and the skew. They have to come across as being believers of the skew and justifying such an opinion.

      More importantly, they sometimes toss out gems of truth masked as ridicule or something else that really should be investigated further. Viveka in particular brought up two points.

      One was addressed above (but repeated here for clarity.)

      Viveka wrote:

      What about the 64 people aboard Flight 77. Were they all just made up?

      Yes! Exactly! Most of the 64 on Flight 77 probably were “just made up!” Made-up SimVictims is not anything new and is even covered in Operation Northwood from the JFK era, but with the caveat that social media now makes it so much easier to generate false legends, albeit with the caveat that close scrutiny can poke (and has poked) holes in them.

      Viveka later wrote:

      The guy in your video is a big blowhard. (He cites Steven Jones for fuck sake, has that guy not yet been discredited in your book?)

      Take that parenthetical seriously. It is either a slip or a massive hint on where you need to look.

      My esteem for Dr. Jones is waning. However good and true that he discovered nano-thermite in the debris dust implicating the use of exotic govt weapons, it has become a distraction. Nano-thermite doesn’t address all of the destruction or its nature (e.g., pulverized). If there were fires burning under the rubble for months, nano-thermite can’t explain that either. Dr. Jones knows this, yet allows the science-challenged yoemen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to erroneously extrapolate nano-thermite into explaining things it cannot…

      Physics professor Dr. Jones, more so than any other individual or group outside or within the 9/11 truth movement has led us away from nukes of any sort with deceptive scientific techniques, assumptions, and analysis. He based his conclusions on measurements and analysis taken by govt agencies, which he has in other context taken to task for being less than forthright or forthcoming.

      And when I say “nukes of any sort”, I am also referring to nuclear mechanisms/generators as an energy source as well as cold-fusion, which is yet another area where Dr. Jones has roots of deception.

      Dr. Jones was involved in the PSYOPS re-enforced over time against Dr. Wood. He was the first and most prominent to ridicule Dr. Wood and mischaracterize her arguments about pulverization being a massive energy as “beams from space or space-based DEW.”

      The point is, parsing their messages exactly can not only tear apart their efforts while also giving you clues on where to look.

  17. Very interesting Senor El Once, and many thanks for your efforts there.
    It is very interesting you question Steven Jones’ emphasis on nano-thermite. Not too long ago I also was an advocate for Dr. Judy Wood’s theories, and felt Jones was part of the cover-up, but I have since seen a good rebuttal of her theory of ‘dustification’ of steel of which apparently there is no evidence, and yet she rejects the nano-thermite as evidence?

    1. Dear Mr. Juliano, you wrote:

      It is very interesting you question Steven Jones’ emphasis on nano-thermite. Not too long ago I also was an advocate for Dr. Judy Wood’s theories, and felt Jones was part of the cover-up, but I have since seen a good rebuttal of her theory of ‘dustification’ of steel…

      Would you be so kind as to provide us with a link or reference for that “good rebuttal”. I could use some education in the matter. Don’t like being the sole duped useful idiot on the matter.

      … [Dr. Wood’s] theory of ‘dustification’ of steel of which apparently there is no evidence, …

      Plenty of steel exists in the rubble pile, which may be used by opponents as the evidence that no “dustification of steel” happened, sort of a gross exaggeration or over-generalization of the fabled strawman agrument.

      In my skewed conclusions-du-jour, the DEW aimed its energy in a manner that focused it, say, up-and-down and targeted away from things like the inner-core. Multiple devices in tandem at a given level, like at four points around the core, could be aimed to miss both the inner core (holding them up) and the outer steel wall, while “microwaving” all other content within the “cylinder or cone of their destructive beams.” (Later, a clean-up DEW from the bottom could have taken out the spire of inner-core used as a supporting platform for the upper DEW devices.)

      The sole reference in Dr. Wood’s textbook to “dustification of steel” that my aging memory recalls — thus reserving my right to be wrong — was the seeming evaporation of that spire of inner-core from WTC-1 (the 2nd tower to fall) that was captured on many pieces of video. Certainly a most miraculous occurrence no matter how you view it. Did the steel really dustify before our eyes? Or were supporting constructs connecting the steel microwaved into dust thereby causing everything to fall and presenting the illusion that everything in the spire was zapped?

      If I am wrong in this matter of the extent of “dustification of steel” in Dr. Wood’s textbook, then maybe such a premise hasn’t solidified in my own personal theories on the towers, whereby I grasp at nuggets of truth from various (disinformation?) sources to come to my own speculative conclusions.

      … and yet [Dr. Wood] rejects the nano-thermite as evidence?

      Again, news to me that maybe my selective reading attention missed, as I mined her book for nuggets of truth to bolster my own skewed understanding of events.

      It seems to me that she and I were aligned in rejecting nano-thermite as an explanation for all of the evidence, but not necessarily as evidence of a companion means of destruction. All about using the right tool for the job. It would have been beneficial to keep the outer steel shell of the towers in tact to hide most of the targeted DEW pulverization within. DEW does the heavy pulverization while nano-thermite split seconds later cuts the bolts of the steel wall sections that were acting as a curtain to hide the DEW magic.

      Wrapping this back around to the beginning, you wrote:

      Not too long ago I also was an advocate for Dr. Judy Wood’s theories, and felt Jones was part of the cover-up, but I have since seen a good rebuttal

      Does this imply that the rebuttal made you flip-flop 100% from Wood’s camp back into Jones’s? Does this mean that you think Jones is no longer part of the cover-up?

      It is well to separate evidence from theories. Jones doesn’t address the evidence that Wood’s presents. Few do except DEW does.

  18. Dear Senor El Once, I really love your questioning open-mindedness. I feel this is very much needed with this very complex subject because there have been so many twists and turns (especially for me lol) that it is wise to stay flexible, and asking questions of others and to oneself is a good way of doing so.

    I became VERy attracted to Dr Woods theory, and I had an acqaintence with her colleague Andrew Johnson, who inspired me to come online a few years ago.
    I very much feel they HAVE got exotic weaponry, and there is good evidence –testimony from credible sources–they have ‘experiemented’ with it in Iraq, Afghanistan, and that Israelis also have used it.

    So being aware of the secret CONSPIRACY The Manhattan Project which then heralded their Nuclear Age, it would make ‘sense’ they would choose to somewhere use it on their eventful day of 9/11.
    But personally, when I was very into that, I found myself distrusting the controlled demolotion cum thermite and nano-thermite truthers because Andrew’s especially emphasis was to accue all of that is being a deliberate diversion away from knowledge of free energy. So in a way we are talkin ‘a conspiracy OF a conspiracy’.

    Anyway, I began questioning Dr Wood, first port of call was here: DEBUNKING DR JUDY WOOD AND HER “SPACE BEAM” THEORY! | Facebook http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=161415886170&topic=16692 ““DEBUNKING DR JUDY WOOD!

    Claims made by “Space Beamers” aka Dr Judy Wood supporters: (With rebuttal)

    1) Claim: Dr. Judy Wood is the ONLY 9/11 researcher ever to file evidence with a court-of-law in pursuit of the truth.

    Rebuttal: Wrong! Many have filed lawsuits pertaining to 9/11! many were also silenced in agreement with the 9/11 victims compensation package.”
    “2) Claim: “Stephen Jones wouldn’t DARE file a legal document claiming thermite did it, because fraud is a crime and Steven Jones isn’t stupid.”

    Rebuttal: No, he and 10 other of his colleagues wrote a peer reviewed article published by Bentham Journal. It is easily accessible on line for free. What Fraud?”

    “4) Claim: A&E911T is not involved in the scientific process.

    Rebuttal: WRONG again! AE911 make up over 1200 Architects and Engineers and over 8000 Students.

    Show me Judy Wood’s science that proves “space beams” brought down the towers! SHOW ME HER SCIENTIFIC PROOF! Where’s her scientific process? What peer review articles does Judy Wood have?”

    “8) Claim: “I regularly challenge both Steven Jones and Niels Harrit to a debate on whether or not thermite destroyed the World Trade Center.”

    Rebuttal: Not Dr Steven Jones , Neils Harrit or anyone at AE911 says thermite destroyed the World Trade Center alone. Nano Thermite was used to weaken the structure and EXPLOSIVES finished the job.”

    Dr. Judy Wood Debunked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny-I5ui-s08 (notice top comment. the person is not convinced!) –I have a lot more links if your interested.

    “The sole reference in Dr. Wood’s textbook to “dustification of steel” that my aging memory recalls — thus reserving my right to be wrong — was the seeming evaporation of that spire of inner-core from WTC-1 (the 2nd tower to fall) that was captured on many pieces of video. Certainly a most miraculous occurrence no matter how you view it. Did the steel really dustify before our eyes? Or were supporting constructs connecting the steel microwaved into dust thereby causing everything to fall and presenting the illusion that everything in the spire was zapped?”

    Now, several years ago, I also thought I was seeing it turn to dust before my eyes, but I saw a video taken from a nother angle where it is NOT turning to dust at all but falling down! The usual film is illusionary, because what your seeing is dust on it staying there for a second whilst it collapses making it seem like it is turning to dust. it is VERy frustrating that I have collected my links but that one I cannot find
    Just tried a quick search at youtube, but just cannot find the video. I can only depend on memory. I remember being shocked because i had been SO convinced it has supposed to have turned to dust, but this other angle it just falls down. Considering the debunking videos it is VERy surprising i cannot easily find a video about this!!
    I STILl am open, like I say, that there could have been an exottic weapon used, BUT if other evidence is enough, why should it matter? I am seriously asking this?

    1. Dear Mr. Juliano,

      Thank you for the link to “Debunking Dr. Judy Wood and her Space Beam”. After reading parts and scanning other parts, I don’t hold it in high regard. (And it is on FBI’s Facebook.)

      It seemingly tries to manufacture outrage and scandal. I noticed many dubious framing of the claims that seem stilted towards strawmen that the rebuttal knocks over.

      No time for a detailed analysis, but claim 1 has rebuttals that split hairs over court filings and completely glosses over who had the fortitude to make it to court. The statement “silenced by the 9/11 victims compensation package” is one of those gems needing further exploration in its own right, but doesn’t really support the debunking effort either.

      The rebuttal to the second claim puts a back-scratching article snuck into a “friendly journal” on the same level as a legal document filed in court. It really doesn’t get better from there, except in how it muddies the water.

      I very much feel they HAVE got exotic weaponry, and there is good evidence – testimony from credible sources – they have ‘experiemented’ with it in Iraq, Afghanistan, and that Israelis also have used it.

      This is something worthy of more publicity and research.

      But personally, when I was very into that, I found myself distrusting the controlled demolotion cum thermite and nano-thermite truthers because Andrew’s especially emphasis was to accue all of that is being a deliberate diversion away from knowledge of free energy. So in a way we are talkin ‘a conspiracy OF a conspiracy’.

      Diversion away from knowledge of free energy is another conspircy that might relate in a Vengraph sort of a way. Has validity. They killed the electric car. Hell, they killed one of the greatest mass transit systems in the world in LA, with the backroom business dealings that converted their street car system into buses.

      I saw a video taken from a nother angle where it is NOT turning to dust at all but falling down! The usual film is illusionary, because what your seeing is dust on it staying there for a second whilst it collapses making it seem like it is turning to dust. it is VERy frustrating that I have collected my links but that one I cannot find

      I’ve seen that and agree that steel turning to dust is probably an overstatement. Affixing our attention to this falling spire is still important. The fact that a spire remained at all in light of gravitational collapses at free-fall rates, pile drivers, crush down, etc. is curious. And that the spire on cue drops.

      I STILL am open, like I say, that there could have been an exottic weapon used, BUT if other evidence is enough, why should it matter? I am seriously asking this.

      You’ve already pointed it out. They’ve used exotic weapons in war. Is this legal or moral? Is it justified (the use of the weapon and the war itself)? Is it American? Who will complain on our behalf when it is used on us?

      If other evidence is enough (to prove govt corruption and 9/11 involvement), the full and true cause matters for the same reasons that family members and the community need to know whether inattentive driving-while-texting crashed the car or whether multiple gunshot wounds in the driver’s head led to the fatal car crash.

      Just like the shock-and-awe of 9/11 knee-jerked us into multiple wars against fabled enemies and destruction of our rights, shock-and-awe to the public’s awareness regarding the depth and extent of the 9/11 crime and its conspirators is requisite to get us to the appropriate reset point.

      How deeply do we need to cut to root out the vermin and their influence?

      I’m convinced that parts of the restitution goes back to 1913 when the Federal Reserve and the personal income tax were foisted on us. I’m convinced that the media was an active player in the 9/11 ruse. How much of that do we disassemble, and can we do it before they kill the internet?

  19. Dear Senor El Once, “Thank you for the link to “Debunking Dr. Judy Wood and her Space Beam”. After reading parts and scanning other parts, I don’t hold it in high regard. (And it is on FBI’s Facebook.)”

    How do you know it is on FBI’s Facebook?

    Just to keep it simple for the moment because this is all very complex (is to me anyway)–Just focusing on Dr. Wood’s claims that the steel turned to dust: IF you saw it has not turned to dust at all but had just fallen over, when seen from another angle, how would you feel about Wood’s theory of ‘dustification’? Just this point for now, please.

    1. I wrote:

      “Thank you for the link to “Debunking Dr. Judy Wood and her Space Beam”. After reading parts and scanning other parts, I don’t hold it in high regard. (And it is on FBI’s Facebook.)”

      Mr. Juliano wrote:

      How do you know it is on FBI’s Facebook?

      When I click on the link, it takes me to Facebook.

      If your question refers to FBI’s ownership of Facebook, you’re correct that this was pulled out of my ass. Ownership is a different question from who has keys to its backdoor and from whether such key holders are the FBI, CIA, NSA, or some other unknown agency. If they can’t get in the backdoor with Zuckerberg’s master password, they’ll be ramming it down with whatever means are at their disposal. As an information source on the population, Facebook is just too good to be true for “law enforcement.”

      Mr. Juliano wrote:

      Dr. Wood’s claims that the steel turned to dust: IF you saw it has not turned to dust at all but had just fallen over, when seen from another angle, how would you feel about Wood’s theory of ‘dustification’? Just this point for now, please.

      The extent of dustification is another dubious re-framing by others akin to “beams from space” to caste Dr. Wood and her evidence into a bad light without the responsibility of offering a better explanation.

      Clearly, drywall, concrete, and other content were dustified almost down to the molecular level. This is a massive energy sink that conventional demolition with explosives (exotic or otherwise) can’t explain, at least not without seismic and audio evidence also being in agreement.

      The question of whether the spire was dustified is a different question from whether other steel or metal were dustified.

      In the videos of the spire, I did not see the remaining spire of WTC-1 inner-core “fall over.” I saw dust suddenly being kicked up along its height and particularly its joints (e.g., at each floor). The dust lingers in the air as a distracting cloud while the steel beams slip down through it and to the ground at gravitational acceleration. The steel beams along the entire height had some appearance of suddenly no longer being connected with one another.

      A similar phenomen happens in the destruction of the upper floors of WTC-2, the portion that was leaning at 23 degrees. This had angular momentum and should have toppled over. Instead, suddenly the angular momentum appears to be halted as the innerds of that chuck of floors “dustifies itself” down (change of direction) into the structure below it, which then “dustifies itself” as well, albeit a bit late to be in agreement with phyics and supposed pile drivers.

      The sudden transition of the spire as well as the fact that it didn’t fall over despite it having some appearance of a slight lean are noteworthy for students of physics. Specifically, the spire had strength and support through all levels and joints proven by it standing after the tower was turned to dust around it. I could have understood the weakest joint(s) failing causing it to fall over like a tree from that point. I can’t understand all joints/levels of the spire seemingly disintegrating suddenly at once allowing the tree (beams) to seemingly fall “through its trunk”.

      In this instance of the spire and a clean-up beam, the steel did not appear to be dustified; just residual matter afixed to the steel dustified.

      Was other steel dustified? I don’t know.

      Most of the steel from the outer walls appear to have been represented well in the various debris piles. Steel from the core? Steel from the floors that supported the pans for concrete? Steel rebar in the concrete? Unlike the outer walls, such steel would have been directly in the path of the DEW’s beam (assuming this). Dr. Wood makes the argument that such steel is not represented appropriately in the debris piles, and it has much validity.

  20. The only thing this website does is make people more idiotic… read as far as an apparent 757 doing 350km/h above safe operating speed is like driving a golf cart at 200km/h with a standard engine.if you can get a golf cart up to 160km/h over speed without modifying it (assuming it even does 40km/h) you will notice as you approach max speed 40km/h that it’s revving at peak revs now lets say that is 4000rpm.to get the engine to do 200km (golf cart has only 2 gears forward backward) that engine has to 20,000 rpm, do that and I will believe your crap (you have to use standard battery’s/fuel depending on whether electric or internal combustion engine, how do you get a standard electric/ combustion engine to operate 150% better??

  21. glenn, I don’t think anybody is claiming that a 757 can do 350 km/h above safe operating speed. As I understand it, CIT claims that the Pentagon aircraft was actually going much slower than the official story claims. And I believe the Pilots for Truth’s analysis about the speed of the WTC 767’s indicates that they believe the radar data shows speeds that are impossible for a standard 767. So I think you’ve only managed to shoot down an argument that nobody is making.

    Also, maybe if you learn to punctuate you’ll communicate better.

  22. SOME say, and I am only pointing it out here so it is aired–that all this talk about ‘was it a plane? was it not a plane?’ is a kind of diversion that MAY have been intended by COINTELPRO to DIVERT attention away from real clues such as Israeli involvement in 9/11? I.e., if we all are spending our energy on the plane thing we are taking our eye off the possible *suspects* who have framed others in a false flag operation!

    1. I believe strongly that the vast majority of truthers believe that no large plane hit the Pentagon. The evidence doesn’t support a 757 crash. And this offers us perhaps the best proof of an inside job because we know there’s no way anyone but the government itself could have faked this. We have to prove the official story wrong, and this is one of the best ways to do that.

  23. I am not discounting ALL investigation and evidence, but some 9/11 researchers do stress that many other 9/11 researchers are not aware, or don’t mention, the Israeli involvement in 9/11 which directly points at possible *suspects* in a false flag operation.

    1. I agree. I think the two should happen simultaneously. The physical evidence tells us the government story is a lie. But we need to follow the other evidence concerning who was involved wherever that might lead us.

  24. Very simple solution. Have them release the names if the “victims” of that ficticious flight! Problem solved. Wouldn’t take much checking to see if they are lying or not. They are not gonna get all the friends and family of these supposed victims to lie, and keep their stories straight!! Never followed the whole Pentagon fiction anyway. I knew early on it was all fairy tale, false flag crap. So I guess I really didn’t know if they released a “victims” list or not! Don’t care, COMMON SENSE alone tells me it’s fictitious. Only a naive, gullible suckerbob believes that garbage anyway. My guess is, anyone running their gibs to the contrary is on the gov payroll, so their opinion isn’t worth the mouth it is emanating from!!! I’ll pit my logic against their lies any day. These given folks had better realize that the turds they are working for are destroying them and their families as well! Think about that the next time you look your wife, kids, brother, sister, mom, or dad in the eyes. They have no future if we continue down this path!

  25. I agree completely with what you said, Craig. I had the same beliefs as yours, and I finally found someone that thinks the same way. I firmly believe that the government is hiding something from us and that 9/11 was all a set up and an inside job.

    1. You can see a similar pattern in other false flag events by these people. Here are two: The London Bombings. ALL of a sudden on THAT day of 7th July 2005, suddenly the CCTV cameras didn’t work properly http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125×53178 Now let us visit the Boston Bombings. The so-called crucial CCTV camera which shows the ‘terrorists’ placing the bomb is apparently too distressing for the public to see say the FBI. WE believe then don’t we…? http://www.naturalnews.com/040898_boston_marathon_false_flag_terror_drills.html
      It is like these people, these fiends, are laughing at us behind and in front of our backs whispering each other, just look at this–we can do any old shit and these peeps will blieve it mwahahahaha!! Because it is true, many DO believe what they do, and distrust their own eyes, and science, and will try and argue you to they are blue in the face that the offical garbage narrative is the truth—no matter how totally utterly ludicrous

  26. So many worthless comments.

    Great article – it completely stands on its own and doesn’t need any more said than the fact we as American citizens should DEMAND everyday to see the 80+ videos. I don’t care what they show or don’t show – let me watch them regardless.

    1. Bit confused by your ‘so may worthless comments’, but as for last bit, I say HOW DO PEOPLE carry on as usual. In our media they are blathering on about how schools are under-achieving…? UNDERACHIEVING? The whole ‘education’ system is obviously absolutely worthless, because it churns out people who are completely robotic and willing to blindly go on consuming and whatnot in the totally insane world. You tell some this and they go ‘hey, steady on…’ It makes you want to pull your hair out in frustration at such soulless deadness. The Day of the Triffids has nothing on this!!!

  27. um from the inside fbi set off syntax charges that hold the building up they were in the buildings info stucture and called the spline the motto is and was if anybody gonna blow our buildings up its gonna be us u.s i quote bush

  28. Am I the only one that has the feeling that slamming the airplanes was an act of desperation rather the religious attacks? I think the multi plane hijacking started as a *normal* hijacking if you can call a hijacking normal since each one in history are all unique but I think whatever planes they had decided to *go south* so in order to cover their asses and not go to prison they decided to * go for broke* by killing themselves at the cost of other lives.

    9/11 is simply plan B of whatever they were originally going to do.

  29. I meant to say whatever normal plans they decided on September 11th 2001 all went *south* and had to resort to plan B which was to destroy all evidence of the crimes which slamming into the buildings would do that and ensure they would never have to face trial to do some *splaining*.

    The bombs that some people claim who were inside the WTC around the times of collapse were likely part of a SEPARATE incident to make sure the buildings did NOT sway sideways in the event of a structure collapse caused by terrorism or even an airplane accident due to navigation malfunctions or a stupid pilot.

    A fail safe plan so insurance money can be claimed with no damage to nearby buildings or 9/11 would’ve been a FAR bigger mess to clean up if the buildings fell sideways pelting people below with debris and in other buildings.

    An entire block would’ve been destroyed in addition.

    1. Everything you’ve written is pure speculation and conflicts with all the evidence that we have. 9/11 was a false flag operation designed to look like a Muslim terror attack – which it was not.

  30. If a plane really hit it, then you can bet your ass they would of shown it long ago. Repeatedly! There are 4 roof top cameras on that side and 1 right above the impact. Did any of you have trouble seeing a 757 fly into the trade on video? NO! So why would you now? And don’t try to give some bullshit that the cameras wouldn’t have caught it. But just in case some idiot tries…

    That camera records images every 0.1 seconds. A plane at 550mph would be at 807 feet per second. 155 foot plane would be at 0.192 seconds past any reference point. A 120 ton Boeing 757 plane would be 100 % visible in that video, but isn’t.

    So much for that bullshit!

    People want to know why some don’t believe the official story… Are kidding me? Lets see if I can explain it in moron terms for you official believers.

    Lets just forget about the fact that most of the jet fuel burned up in the first few minutes, and go with the official story. So…

    2 planes crash into the tops of skyscrapers on 1 side of a 4 sided building. Jet fuel burns so hot that all 4 sides and all 4 facades including the middle cores weaken evenly at the same time, thus, causing all 4 sides and the middle cores of huge thick cuts of steel to just give out, thus, causing a symmetrical pancake of the top floors, which also some how happen to weaken the 80 + untouched floors below as well, causing the total free fall collapse of 3 buildings (1 not even hit and with no jet fuel) in all of 6.5 seconds, while pulverizing tons of concrete and steel into fine dust. (which doesn’t even happen in controlled demolitions)

    and then ..some how these 2 planes w/ jet fuel, manage to damage a quarter of the city, melt thousands of cars within a 10 block radius, then burn for over 3 months!

    While 1 plane w/ jet fuel hits the pentagon, doesn’t even leave a sign of wreckage and only damages a wall with a hole smaller than the plane itself, but not before it disintegrates with all the bodies.

    Not just 1 plane disintegrates either.. All 4 planes! … gone. vanished. disintegrated.

    And these people want to know why some people don’t believe that? lol.. Wow! WTF?

    If jet fuel can cause all that damage just because it burns hot, then why don’t planes just melt and fall out the sky? With all that jet fuel burning out the backs of steel and aluminum afterburners, I’m surprised they can even take off… :/

    Geniuses! lol.

    PS the towers wouldn’t burn even all 4 sides jackasses… 1 or 2 at the most if even that. Considering the jet fuel was all gone in 15 minutes, regular fire wouldn’t have melted or weakened the steel. But even if it did, the tops would topple over to the side, not pancake symmetrically. But even if that did… it damn sure wouldn’t cause a totally even symmetrical collapse of 80 untouched floors in 6.5 seconds. How fucking retarded do you have to be to believe that?

  31. By the way… there’s a photo proving the pentagon was hit with a missile, not a plane. So that’s a dead topic. Now maybe we can focus on the only 2 questions that matter.

    How did all the melt up to 10 blocks away? Jet fuel doesn’t do that.

    Why did it burn for over 3 months? Jet fuel don’t that either…

    Explain those away!

    1. Which photo are you talking about? You are the second person in a couple of days to make this claim but I am not aware of any photo that proves anything close to this. What’s dead is the claim that a plane hit the building.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s