Thank you my friend thank you!
 

 it will start like this,,,then turn the tide of ignorance. the first step is making people understand they can NOT believe what they view as NEWS!!!!
 

we will succeed

indeed

 

or you could have me make you a gif like I did for attack from within, speaking of which truthmeister, if you want one you know who to call :-D


 

When I first saw.."Loose Change 2nd Edition" I was blown away. The video evidence is so absolutely stunning, and very hard to disagree with. What's amazing to me, is that some folks, people, individuals still can not, or will not accept what "really" happened. THERE IS NO WAY THAT BUILDING CAME DOWN because of FIRE!!! Or maybe I should say all three buildings. WTC 7 that you show on your profile.......WAS NOT EVEN HIT with a plane. The firemen testimony is there. Didn't look like they were lying to me.
There is an Agenda, in my mind, 9/11 is the "NEW PEARL HARBOR".
Another film to look at is "Why we Fight". Even the clips on their website are....... Highly Informative.http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/main.html (copy and paste)

Disturbing........ absolutely. Important...... yeah, if you want to see what's happening. Take the time to look, it's worth it.

~dave~
 

Reasonable people are entitled to wish that our government had been better prepared and more alert. But those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.

Besides, to carry out such a massive conspiracy would require an impossible effort, smarts, and brilliance..... that, frankly, this inept administration is just not capable of pulling off.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syEFbdYKl9s&search=penn teller



Enough is Enough, Get A Life, Please.


Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1230517.html

The Lies Are Out There. Told by those with too much time on their hands, looking for a paid speaking engagement, to sell some book, movie script, movie, TV show, or website hits- it's usually done for some bucks. Suckers are a dime a dozen- born by the multitudes every second of every day. There are those who just like to lie, it is what they do best, and they wish to pull as many people as they can into their web of lies. They are creative and convincing...... they are also pathetic.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," the great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts."

It has been 3-1/2 years since the September 11 attacks. In that time, the American people have questioned why we were caught off guard and have demanded to know the whole story behind the events of that terrible day. But as a society we accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us.

Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists. A few of these skeptics make a responsible effort to sift through the mountain of information, but most ignore all but a few stray details they think support their theories. In fact, many conspiracy advocates demonstrate a maddening double standard. They distrust every bit of the mainstream account of 9/11, yet happily embrace the flimsiest evidence to promote their wildest notions: that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States with help from the CIA; that the hijacked planes weren't commercial jets, but military aircraft, cruise missiles or remote-control drones; that the World Trade Center buildings were professionally demolished.

These 9/11 conspiracy theories, long popular abroad, are gradually--though more quietly--seeping into mainstream America. Allegations of U.S. complicity in the attacks have become standard fare on talk radio and among activists on both the extreme left and the extreme right of the political spectrum.

Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Nobody should take everything they hear--from the government, the media or anybody else--at face value. But in a culture shaped by Oliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently getting harder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate, shadowy theorizing.

Fortunately, facts can be checked. For our special report, PM compiled a list of the 16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists, assertions that are at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario. These claims all involve fields that are part of PM's core expertise--structural engineering, aviation, military technology and science.

We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified.

Reasonable people are entitled to wish that our government had been better prepared and more alert. But those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.

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


http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000


------------------------------------------------------
http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/

When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad

Theories that the U.S. government aided or engineered the 9/11 attacks aren't just horribly misguided -- they distract from the nefarious deeds our leaders actually do perpetrate.

Please stop sending me those emails. You know who are. And you know what emails I mean ... Okay, I'll spell it out -- those forwarded emails suggesting, or flat-out stating, the CIA and the U.S. government were somehow involved in the horrific September 11 attacks.

There are emails about a fellow imprisoned in Canada who claims to be a former U.S. intelligence office and who supposedly passed advance warning of the attack to jail guards in mid-August. There are emails, citing an Italian newspaper, reporting that last July Osama bin Laden was treated for kidney disease at the American hospital in Dubai and met with a CIA official. There are the emails, referring to a book published in France, that note the attacks came a month after Bush Administration officials, who were negotiating an oil deal with the Taliban, told the Afghans "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."

Get the hint? Washington either did nothing to stop the September 11 attacks or plotted the assaults so a justifiable war could then be waged against Afghanistan to benefit Big Oil.

One email I keep receiving is a timeline of so-called suspicious events that "establishes CIA foreknowledge of [the September 11 attacks] and strongly suggests that there was criminal complicity on the part of the U.S. government in their execution."

I won't argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skulduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. Still, each week emails passing on such tripe arrive. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I'm irritated enough to try.

It's a mug's game to refute individual pieces of conspiracy theories. Who can really know if anything that bizarre happened at a Dubai hospital? As for the man jailed in Canada, he was being held on a credit card fraud charge, and the only source for the story about his warning was his own word. The judge in his case said, "There is no independent evidence to support his colossal allegations." But a conspiracy-monges can reply, wouldn't you expect the government and its friends in Canada to say that?

So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)

Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).

Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.

Not evil enough. This is as foul as it gets -- to kill thousands of Americans, including Pentagon employees, to help out oil companies. (The sacrificial lambs could have included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed in Pennsylvania.) This is a Hollywood-level of dastardliness, James Bond (or Dr. Evil) material.

Are there enough people of such a bent in all those agencies? That's doubtful. CIA officers and American officials have been evildoers. They have supported death squads and made use of drug dealers overseas. They have assisted torturers, disseminated assassination manuals, sold weapons to terrorist-friendly governments, undermined democratically-elected governments, and aided dictators who murder and maim. They have covered up reports of massacres and human rights abuses. They have plotted to kill foreign leaders.

These were horrendous activities, but, in most instances, the perps justified these deeds with Cold War imperatives (perverted as they were). And to make the justification easier, the victims were people overseas. Justifying the murder of thousands of Americans to help ExxonMobil would require U.S. officials to engage in a different kind of detachment and an even more profound break with decency and moral norms.

I recall interviewing one former CIA official who helped manage a division that ran the sort of actions listed above, and I asked him whether the CIA had considered "permanently neutralizing" a former CIA man who had revealed operations and the identities of CIA officers. Kill an American citizen? he replied, as if I were crazy to ask. No, no, he added, we could never do that. Yes, in the spy-world some things were beyond the pale. And, he explained, it would be far too perilous, for getting caught in that type of nasty business could threaten your career. Which brings us to....

Not gutsy enough. Think of the danger -- the potential danger to the plotters. What if their plan were uncovered before or, worse, after the fact? Who's going to risk being associated with the most infamous crime in U.S. history? At the start of such a conspiracy, no one could be certain it would work and remain a secret. CIA people -- and those in other government agencies -- do care about their careers.

Would George W. Bush take the chance of being branded the most evil president of all time by countenancing such wrongdoing? Oil may be in his blood, but would he place the oil industry&..39;s interests ahead of his own? (He sure said sayonara to Kenneth Lay and Enron pretty darn fast.) And Bush and everyone else in government know that plans leak. Disinformation specialists at the Pentagon could not keep their office off the front page of The New York Times. In the aftermath of September 11, there has been much handwringing over the supposed fact that U.S. intelligence has been too risk-averse. But, thankfully, some inhibitions -- P.R. concerns, career concerns -- do provide brakes on the spy-crowd.

A fellow named Michael Ruppert, who compiled that timeline mentioned above, has drawn large crowds to his lectures. He has offered $1000 to anyone who can "disprove the authenticity of any of his source material." Well, his timeline includes that Canadian prisoner's claim and cites the Toronto Star as the source. But Ruppert fails to note that the Star did not confirm the man's account, that the paper reported some observers "wonder if it isn't just the ravings of a lunatic," and that the Star subsequently reported the judge said the tale had "no air of reality." Does that disprove anything? Not 100 percent. There's still a chance that man is telling the truth, right? So I'm not expecting a check.

Conspiracy theories may seem more nuisance than problem. But they do compete with reality for attention. There is plenty to be outraged over without becoming obsessed with X Files-like nonsense. Examples? There's the intelligence services's failure to protect Americans and the lack of criticism of the CIA from elected officials. Or, General Tommy Franks, the commander of military operations in Afghanistan, declaring the commando mis-assault at Hazar Qadam, which resulted in the deaths of fifteen to twenty local Afghans loyal to the pro-U.S. government, was not an intelligence failure. (How can U.S. Special Forces fire at targets they wrongly believe to be Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, end up killing people they did not intend to kill, and the operation not be considered an intelligence failure?) More outrage material? A few months ago, forensic researchers found the remains of people tortured and killed at a base the CIA had established in the 1980s as a training center for the contras. The U.S. ambassador to Honduras at the time is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte.

There are always national security misdeeds to be mad about. They may not be as cinematic in nature as a plot in which shady, unidentified U.S. officials scheme to blow up the World Trade Towers to gain control of an oil pipeline in Central Asia. But dozens of dead Hondurans or twenty or so Afghans wrongly killed ought to provoke anger and protest. In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison. (What's a few dead in Central America, compared to thousands in New York City? Why worry about Negroponte, when unidentified U.S. officials are slaughtering American civilians to trigger war?)

Perhaps there's a Pentagon or CIA office that churns out this material. Its mission: distract people from the real wrongdoing. Now there's a conspiracy theory worth exploring. Doesn't it make sense? Doesn't it all fit together? I challenge anyone to disprove it.

------------------------------------
http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

Paul Boutin is a freelance technology writer and former engineer in San Francisco. Patrick Di Justo is an astrophysics educator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City who writes for Wired magazine and Wired News.

To be clear: We believe that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 because we know far too many friends and colleagues in Washington who saw the plane come in over the freeway - some right over their heads - and felt the earth shake as it disappeared into the Pentagon. And we think people who believe they can uncover the truth about anything by surfing the Web are deceiving themselves in a dangerous way.

But we couldn't help taking up the challenge anyway.

As lifelong propellerheads who firmly believe in asking questions, we found Hunt the Boeing an engaging puzzle, despite its tragic subject matter, but one full of obvious errors and misleading questions. Since many of our friends continue to ask us if we've seen the site, we decided to document our answers to it, which we wrote separately. As might be expected, Patrick focused on the math and science (you may remember his widely circulated napkin math on the WTC attack), while Paul picked apart the wording of the questions.

See the original site for photos that accompany the questions.


Question No 1
The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Paul: The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the planes engines.

More importantly, the question focuses on the planes size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon Americas largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.

By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. Its not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal.

Patrick: Watch the videotapes of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. They were traveling at approximately 400 mph, and they hit an aluminum and glass building. An entire plane went in, and hardly anything came out the other side, 208 feet away.

Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.


Question No 2
The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Paul: Again the question contains incorrect facts in its setup: As reported in the New York Times, the plane struck between the first and second floors of the building. The high-res version of the photo shows a two story high hole in side of the building. Don't look where the fire truck is directing its water, but towards the center of the photo two floors out of four are knocked out of the outside wall.

Patrick: The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building. If the landing wheels were not down and locked, the full height of the plane would extend upwards into the second floor of the building, which is what happened.


Question No 3
The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building. You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Paul: : Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If youve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.

But since the question more literally asks for a photo showing airliner debris on the lawn, here's one. Here's another.

Patrick: The Pentagon burned (or at least smoldered) for several days. Was this photograph taken on September 11? Or was it taken after the wreckage was moved away?


Question No 4
The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Patrick: My father was a construction engineer. He would only put a crane onto a grass lawn in an extreme emergency, and only after getting indemnified against damages. No, the first thing he would do is to lay down a pathway of steel plates, then cover them with gravel, to prevent his equipment from getting bogged down in the soft earth. When you see in that picture is a roadway being built to bring the heavy equipment across the lawn.

Paul: You dont have to be a construction worker to recognize a road being built over the lawn, to support the vehicles dismantling the damaged building and hauling away debris. I cant find any news reports (or people who remember any) about Donald Rumsfeld personally ordering this work done. I suspect the statement is false, and was added to make the activity seem more suspicious.


Question No 5
The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

Paul: If youre going to doctor evidence, do it right: Eyewitness accounts say the plane hit from 45 degrees to the side. Adjust the silhouettes properly, and fix the parallax effect in the second photo. The plane fits the impact area pretty well: Don't look at the collapsed upper floors, but at the wider swatch knocked out of the ground floor. I would expect the wings, being weaker than the building, to collapse on the way in. But with no previous crashes of the sort to guide us, we can't possibly predict what should have happened. If there's anything we learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't possible.


Question No 6
The quotations in Question 6 correspond to statements made by Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, at the Pentagon.

When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

"You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?"

"We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -"

Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

Paul: Quoting people verbatim to make them sound like they are dissembling is an old journalists trick, as any Doonesbury reader knows. I think Chief Plaugher answered the question pretty well: Theres a puddle (of melted metal, not jet fuel hes not directly answering the reporters idiotic question) that was the nose, and a few small pieces visible, but no large sections.

Patrick: Are any government officials telling any journalists anything these days?


Question No 7
The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

Paul: The answer is front and center in the photo, maybe to make us think it cant be that obvious: The two-story high impact hole (also seen in the photo for Question No 2) is immediately to the right of the fireman, partly hidden by the spray of water from the fire truck. Look at the second high-res photo and you can't miss it. Are we supposed to think its a two-story archway of some sort? See pre-crash photos or the surviving sides for comparison.

Patrick: In enlargement ..1, the impact hole fits in the rectangle formed from pixel(1232,1088) to pixel(1492, 1545).

After that, I didnt bother to look at enlargement ..2.
 

I dont know who made that anti-conspiracy video, but allow me to review it

 

 

Summarizing the video

 

-Skeptics are special assholes (totally relevant)

-some random guy: Nobody can convince me- etc (who the fuck is this guy)

-stop this bullshit paranoid fantasy (at least thats not an opinion)

-this retired fireman knows conspiracies are fake, because 1. He lost 50 friends, and 2. He was there (like all those eyewitnesses)

-fireman: almost exact statement following: Beautiful morning, and I received a phone call from a friend of mine, who said go inside and turn on the T.V, so I went inside and turned on the T.V. and saw what millions of Americans saw. I assembled a team of men, and we made our way down to ground zero. Everything was covered with a half inch of this very thick dust, and people were running around covered with blood. (end of statement, which contained absolutely no facts to the contrary of or even pertaining to any conspiracy theories)

-and before the dust settled, conspiracies were already rising from the ashes (this guy is starting to piss me off)

-software developer I have an opinion (gee, I wonder why they used this guy)

- nononono, its a steaming pile of crap (fair coverage)

-pause whats your proof? (he didnt actually ask that question did he?)

-unpause : software guy continues what he ways saying, oblivious to the fact that in the future, the reporter will edit in, whats your proof?

-wow, instead of asking your resources, Ill assume you did the research in your ass

-irrelevent retired fireman again: I find it absolutely unbelievable, that anyone in our government could have such a heinous or evil plot to strike their own people. (and of course, we care we he finds absolutely unbelievable)

-Jimmy Walter: another random guy

-and then theres this ASSHOLE! (totally not biased)

-Jimmy: There were eye whitnesses that say it may not have been exactly what the government told us.

-something about an inheritance?  (most irelevant thing ever)

-Jimmy: There is evidence that the same aircraft that took off from boston landed secretly at a military base etc

-and do any of the people who say that live anywhere other than, little Jimmy Walter world? (what the fuck, is that a question?)

-Jimmy: something about how he believes the people on the flight are still alive

-FUCK YOU, we really hope this fuckup runs into a family of someone who died in these horrible attacks. Most of them might not take kindly to the fact that daddys faking his own death (this statement apparently disproves Jimmys theories, because he said daddy, we have to be sentimental and ignore all else)

-Jimmy: makes statement on how WTC collapsed because of explosions

-some random bitch conspiracies cant be real, as they can only be made by paranoid people. (I care what you think)

-random scene of Jimmy being weird, like a chicken (I wonder why they chose THIS guy)

- Glen Coreman, assistant fire-chief: Theres no evidence there was any type of explosives or bombs. What really brought the building down was the fire. (theres no evidence at all, and who do we have to thank? )

-again, the retired fireman: something about how the fire melted and warped the steel (we can totally prove this, NOT)

-Glen: luggage, chairs, and office supplies melted steel. (STEEL)

-retired fireman a lot of people died

-cue music

-and thats something we should never forget. But to conspiracy nuts, death and suffering are just heart pounding entertainment (this man invented bias)

-here we see things the two random guys said taken out of context to seem like crap

-retired fireman: I think conspiracies like that are an insult to the people who lost their lives here. (are we getting a message here?, something like, dont question what your told)

-random bitch again: paranoid people need structure (assuming shes right, does that make their theories wrong? Does ANYTHING in this video actually prove to the contrary?)

- wasnt 911 a conspiracy enough? (I thought conspiracies were bullshit?)

-recites the government crap already fed us

- cant something small like a pin, destroy something beautiful like a balloon?

(not if the balloon is made of steel)

 

this anit-conspiracy video, this well editited pile of bias and slander, is part of the reason we dont have the evidence we need. the fact that he can say bullshit 400 times, interview random people, and act like he gives a danm about "proof," disgusts me. what have we become? this fucker who made the video is part of the problem any effort to find out what really happened is seen as disgraceful to the people who died. I'm coming out and saying it...

IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, IT'S THE MASS OF PEOPLE TOO SCARED OF THE TRUTH, TOO INSECURE TO LET GO OF THIER SECURITY BLANKETS AND DELUSIONS TO GET OFF THIER ASSES AND BITE THE HAND THATS FEEDING THEM. WE MUST DO ANYTHING IN OUR POWER TO SPREAD THE WORD. WE NEED ACTION, WE NEED NUMBERS, WE NEED FACTS,

we need the truth

im looking around and i dont see much change, my own dad wont look at any evidence, according to him, the entire internet isn't credible. i don't know what to do, i dont know how to fight bias and slander, opinions and blindness. who is in control, the people, or the government? i dont know anymore. ever since 911 i cant watch the news, read the paper, or even alot of internet websites without the words "propaganda" and "lies" continuasly popping in my head. how long has this been going on before 911? how long will it, after? i now mourn what was once a beutiful dream, America.

 

http://www.reopen911.org/ericreubt.htm


And here is a rebuttal to the bullshit of the Popular Mechanics article...

 

I AGREE FULLY ON THE BE PREPARED FOR A ARGUMENT PART AND HAVE FACTS REDY ILL LEAVE THE FACT FINDING TO YOU AND ILL SPREED THE WORD TO AS MANY AS I CAN LATER 
 

I just learned the truth, thanks to Dylan Avery's movie Loose Change. Keep fighting the good fight. I once was blind, but now I can see!!!
 

Rally for truth!
 

I first saw the films on my friend Vito's site when he posted them as a bulletin. Which led me to add conspiracy theorist clothing, which then led me to you. I was absolutely gobsmacked with what I saw. It seems that no-one over here knows all this and when I talk about it, it's like they don't want to believe the truth. When finally the truth is accepted, then what? Where do we go from there?
 

Print it, copy it, get it out!

To repost this, copy and paste the text below:
<center>Print it, copy it, get it out!<P><img src="http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/4852/911factsheetmh3.gif"><P><br><P>

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

 

Hi there, just surfing around and found your profile. Good ideas! You can really get a lot of exposure by posting on a celeb / musician profile. Thanks!

 

Great idea! that has been my experience as well!!!
Peace & Truth!