FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

I previously quoted three truthers who dismiss Jack’s interpretation including Jim Hoffman one of the most respected in the “movement”. I found some more -

1) Dave von Kleist [director of “In Plane Site”] a former advocate of Jack’s interpretation of the still:

“Three new pieces of video footage and one very curious photograph

may raise more questions than they answer. IT MAY BE SAFE TO SAY

THAT THIS EXPLOSION DOES TAKE PLACE DURING THE COLLAPSE OF

THE SOUTH TOWER, but newly discovered evidence may suggest another

reason for this plume of smoke. A newly discovered report from MSNBC's

Rick Sanchez sheds new light on this "Mystery Explosion."”

http://www.911inplanesite.com/911explosion.html

“911 activist” in e-mail to Eric Salter

“KLEIST on introducing himself to me in New York last Saturday immediately started in on a confession that "we solved one of the mysteries in the film," and ADMITTED THE PLUME WAS BULLxxxx.”

(see link below)

2) Eric Salter [Webmaster - questionsquestions.net] the “Journal of 9/11 Studies” published one of his papers http://www.journalof911studies.com/ . Interestingly his conclusions were very similar to mine.

“…this new full-length version of the footage makes it now totally obvious that WE ARE SEEING THE SOUTH TOWER COLLAPSE IN PROGRESS, with the North Tower is standing by itself in front. I think it may be likely that whoever originally put this footage online deliberately edited this last part out with an intent to deceive and succeeded.

[…]

As I pointed out before, von Kleist made a startlingly crude error in claiming that the plume is located to the north and west of the WTC. How many seconds of effort went into this analysis? The distinctive and easily identified pyramid-topped building to the right of the WTC in the footage is Three World Financial Center, and the dark, wide building on the left is WTC7. Thus one can easily determine by the relative locations of the buildings that the camera was located roughly north-by-northwest of the WTC, which means that THE PLUME WAS TO THE EAST OR SOUTHEAST.

[…]

…this claim is very easily debunked anyway. As was already pointed out some time ago by Jim Hoffman and other 9/11 researchers, THE PLUME IN THIS FOOTAGE WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE IN FRONT OF THE TOWER, AT LEAST PARTIALLY, IF IT CAME FROM WTC 6, because of the camera angle. This is easily verified by looking at a map. Instead, the plume is behind and to the left of the tower. If this plume came from any separate explosive event for which there is no evidence the only really logical speculation in this case would be that IT WAS FROM WTC 4 OR 5.

[…]

One might also note that an event of this kind could not possibly have happened without some specific eyewitness reports, not to mention showing up in other sources such as the scores of still camera photos that were taken constantly that morning. The claim falls apart deductively as well as empirically."

3) Kyle Hence [911citizens watch.org] in e-mail to Eric Salter

“When IT WAS SHOWN FOR EXAMPLE THAT THE CO-CALLED DOCUMENTARY "IN PLANE SIGHT" HAD GOT IT WRONG ON THE SO-CALLED EXPLOSION OF WTC 6 and Eric Salter showed a close up of the

United Airlines markings on the plane that hit the second tower on his site

questionsquestions.org and the producer of the film acknowledged at least the

former mistake …”

4) Jeremy Baker [Webmaster? Darkprints.net]

Both the CNN footage of a huge cloud of white "smoke" rising fast over WTC 7 and the still photo von Kleist shows us at the end of the segment have, I'm afraid, been dealt us from the bottom of the deck.

Network video (and common sense) from that morning clearly shows that THE CLIP IN QUESTION WAS TAKEN SECONDS AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF TOWER 2, the rising "smoke" being just the first billowing cloud of white demo-dust (not the black smoke we saw in the other explosions that day). And the vertical shaft of dust to the right of the north tower (singular) indicates where tower 2 had stood burning only seconds before.

[…]

Look at the picture. The building in the center is a corner view of WTC 1. I have the video that the picture was taken from. It begins with a low angle perspective of the collapse of Tower 2 starting at the top and ending with the scene in the photo…

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html

Here’s another image showing WTC 6’s roof intact sometime between the collapses of the 2 towers. The reason for its brightness in the other image is clear. As was documented elsewhere the prevailing winds were blowing south thus dust and smoke darkened Manhattan south of the towers.

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

So I guess Jack predictably will claim that this image like the other was faked. He’d also have to assume the same about the video I linked showing an intact roof. Funny Jack refuses to say where he gets his images from but his protégé asks people who disagree with him to say where their sources got there images from.

Jack has only two things going to support his claim

1) His insistence that WTC 2 is still standing even though several truthers including:

3x well known ones (Hoffman, Von Kliest and Salter)

2x of the earliest ones (Hoffman and Kent Steadman, webmaster of Cyberspaceorbit.com) and

2x who formerly backed the theory (Von Kliest and Steadman)

Agree that this isn’t the case

2) His claim that the video was shot at 9:04 backed only and indirect quote of an unnamed CNN archivist referring to a clip the network did NOT broadcast at the time as quoted by a source of very questionable credibility (Bollyn).

The counter evidence is very strong

1) Lack of any recorded eyewitness accounts of the supposed explosion. Despite several people saying they saw the 2nd crash while the were in the area.

2) At least two witnesses who said they were in the building long after Jack claims it was destroyed

3) Lack of any images showing the building with a hole in its roof till after WTC 1 had collapsed.

4) At least two stills and one video showing the roof to be intact after the collapse of the South Tower.

5) The fact that “Jack’s” dust cloud seems to be closer to WTC 5 or the plaza than WTC 6.

6) The fact that what Jack thinks is a building becomes more transparent with the passage of time.

7) The fact that several truthers even ones who used to believe what Jack did say that the video is from just after WTC 2 collapsed

8) The fact that smoke is emanating from below the roofline of WFC 3, a 50 story building, when the WTC 2 centered on the 81st floor.

9) The fact that both the CNN and NBC stills are hazy which seems to indicate the were taken after the South Tower collapse since all images sefore that are of sunny blue sky.

10) Lack of any (other) images showing the smoke cloud that can be shown to have been taken at the time Jack claims it happened

On yeah there’s also Jack and Duane’s complaint about the lack of rubble inside WTC 6. As Jack points out WTC was really a 10 story building because it had a 2 level basement. A MIT civil/structural engineering prof. said “…a typical building is 90% air, and only 10% solid material”* thus if the building had been perfectly compressed it would have squished down to about 1 story. It wasn’t perfectly compressed of course but the percentage of a building that was solid not including it’s outer walls would be lower than the building as a whole. Is the debris inside the building piled higher or lower than street level? AFAIK there is no way to be sure based on the photos we have.

* http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf

Like Jack said , he has collected every picture taken of 9/11 and has never seen this one before ... So I think it's very reasonable to ask where it came from .

No, Jack said he collected almost every one and absurd claim as

- one site alone has several thousands of during and after photos and

http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?categoryID=3

- he claimed never to have seen the WFC Winter Garden a very distinctive building across the street from the WTC complex

Edited September 26, 2007 by Len Colby

[Duane Daman]

Oh so it's GAME TIME again I see. ... The brightness of the sky is not the problem with this photo ... It's building 6 that we are discussing here , and the fact that WTC 6 is almost as bright as the sky might very well be a problem .

Kevin posted the suspicious looking photo here so why doesn't he answer the question ?

You are playing the games here duane. And Jack as well. The brightness of the roof is not a problem either, its a smokescreen to cover up for the fact that ALL of the evidence points to the fact that Jack White made a horses A-- of himself with his building 6 study. And now its the old...the photos been altered Jack White Gambit. He does this OVER and OVER when his tit is in a wringer.

There is NO REASON to suspect that tis image has been tampered with...and why? Because EVEN WITHOUT IT the remaining evidence says the building was standing and did not "explode" at 9:04 am.

Game, set and match.

Not so fast there pal ... The photo that Kevin provided is highly suspicious looking ... and for some strange reason he doesn't want Jack or me or I guess anyone else here , to know where it came from ... So it won't be "game , set match , until you both learn the rules of the game .

There is plenty of evidence which points to WTC 6 exploding and not collapsing from falling debris ... Not everyone agrees with your assessment of Jack's studies either ... So until we have some real proof that Kevin's photo isn't some government shill photoshop job , and that WTC 6 didn't blow up , I guess we will keep on disagreeing on this one too .

[Kevin M. West]

There is absolutely nothing suspicious about that image. You just want there to be so you can dismiss the evidence. I never refused to give you the source, I was just afk most of the afternoon and didn't answer you yet. I found that image in another thread on this forum, I don't remember exactly who first posted it but I'm sure it's not hard to find. I don't know who took the photo originally, but there is nothing in it to indicate any sort of forgery.

Like I said before, the brightness of that rooftop matches the brightness of the other flat horizontal sunlit surfaces in the scene fairly well. Jack's claim that it's too bright is meaningless, because he hasn't said how bright it should be and why. He just says it's too bright, and you agree like the sheep you are without even caring why.

[Dave Greer]

Got to admit Len, you've got a pretty strong body of evidence put together there. Gonna be difficult to refute.

[Craig Lamson]

Oh so it's GAME TIME again I see. ... The brightness of the sky is not the problem with this photo ... It's building 6 that we are discussing here , and the fact that WTC 6 is almost as bright as the sky might very well be a problem .

Kevin posted the suspicious looking photo here so why doesn't he answer the question ?

You are playing the games here duane. And Jack as well. The brightness of the roof is not a problem either, its a smokescreen to cover up for the fact that ALL of the evidence points to the fact that Jack White made a horses A-- of himself with his building 6 study. And now its the old...the photos been altered Jack White Gambit. He does this OVER and OVER when his tit is in a wringer.

There is NO REASON to suspect that tis image has been tampered with...and why? Because EVEN WITHOUT IT the remaining evidence says the building was standing and did not "explode" at 9:04 am.

Game, set and match.

Not so fast there pal ... The photo that Kevin provided is highly suspicious looking ... and for some strange reason he doesn't want Jack or me or I guess anyone else here , to know where it came from ... So it won't be "game , set match , until you both learn the rules of the game .

There is plenty of evidence which points to WTC 6 exploding and not collapsing from falling debris ... Not everyone agrees with your assessment of Jack's studies either ... So until we have some real proof that Kevin's photo isn't some government shill photoshop job , and that WTC 6 didn't blow up , I guess we will keep on disagreeing on this one too .

First off I'm not your pal.

Second the photo does not matter.

Third, there is NO evidence that points to 6 exploding.

Forth, its game over.

[Craig Lamson]

There is absolutely nothing suspicious about that image. You just want there to be so you can dismiss the evidence. I never refused to give you the source, I was just afk most of the afternoon and didn't answer you yet. I found that image in another thread on this forum, I don't remember exactly who first posted it but I'm sure it's not hard to find. I don't know who took the photo originally, but there is nothing in it to indicate any sort of forgery.

Like I said before, the brightness of that rooftop matches the brightness of the other flat horizontal sunlit surfaces in the scene fairly well. Jack's claim that it's too bright is meaningless, because he hasn't said how bright it should be and why. He just says it's too bright, and you agree like the sheep you are without even caring why.

I think Evan first posted it in response to some sillyness by the half-truthers.

[Duane Daman]

There is absolutely nothing suspicious about that image. You just want there to be so you can dismiss the evidence. I never refused to give you the source, I was just afk most of the afternoon and didn't answer you yet. I found that image in another thread on this forum, I don't remember exactly who first posted it but I'm sure it's not hard to find. I don't know who took the photo originally, but there is nothing in it to indicate any sort of forgery.

Like I said before, the brightness of that rooftop matches the brightness of the other flat horizontal sunlit surfaces in the scene fairly well. Jack's claim that it's too bright is meaningless, because he hasn't said how bright it should be and why. He just says it's too bright, and you agree like the sheep you are without even caring why.

I think Evan first posted it in response to some sillyness by the half-truthers.

If the "the photo does not matter", then why did Kevin present it as evidence ? ... and just as I suspected , neither one of you can supply the source ... but that's ok , the URL address said it all ... 911 LIES wasn't it ?

[Evan Burton]

Many of his claims are false for example it's simply not true that the "towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft," there design was reviewed and it was determined it could withstand a single impact from a 707. The is dispute about whether this study calculated for aplane at approach speed or 600 mph but the lead engineer says it was the latter.

That is also what I understand. It was not designed to withstand an impact, but the lead engineer said he believed it would be able to. The funny thing is there are no calculation to support this.

[Duane Daman]

The above is phunk speak for I will take one single line from a very long list of reasons why 9/11 was a conspiracy and then pretend that I have debunked the all of the inside job evidence and hope that no one will notice that I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about .

Duane, these guys are not worth the bother...they have nothing to defend, but a false sense of honor for our country....the Empire is naked and it is NOT a pretty sight...I don't like it any more than those who 'defend' the official version, but not being in denial am working to right the wrong...the horrible treasonous mass murder. The official version is dead. The exact details of the real version become apparent...but we lack the millions of dollars and subpeona power to have a full investigation. The parallels to Dallas are stunning!...absolutely stunning. Once again the People of good ethics and unembedded will find the truth [as they did in Dallas]...as the Government is complicit in both and only interested in cover-up and keeping America safe for the 'stock market' and Oligarchy....the truth be damned is their value system. The truth is all, is mine.

Peter ...It's a mystery why some people can see the truth of something , no matter how horrible it is , and others will deny the truth with a blind arrogance which is mind numbing ... and people who have this type of mindset , which can't be reasoned with , aren't worth the bother ... It is heartbreaking enough to know how this government has destroyed America , without having to constantly argue with closed minded fools and government shills who defend this kind of evil .

Kevin ... Peter is not wrong and what you are defending is a lie ... I don't know why you defend this lie and don't care , but if you would like to possibly open your closed eyes and mind for 26 minutes , this excellent , well researched documentary will show you the truth about the attacks on 9/11 .

I highly recommend that everyone here , regardless of which side of this argument they are on , watch this new documentary .

911 cover up .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7104676909578880157

[Craig Lamson]

There is absolutely nothing suspicious about that image. You just want there to be so you can dismiss the evidence. I never refused to give you the source, I was just afk most of the afternoon and didn't answer you yet. I found that image in another thread on this forum, I don't remember exactly who first posted it but I'm sure it's not hard to find. I don't know who took the photo originally, but there is nothing in it to indicate any sort of forgery.

Like I said before, the brightness of that rooftop matches the brightness of the other flat horizontal sunlit surfaces in the scene fairly well. Jack's claim that it's too bright is meaningless, because he hasn't said how bright it should be and why. He just says it's too bright, and you agree like the sheep you are without even caring why.

I think Evan first posted it in response to some sillyness by the half-truthers.

If the "the photo does not matter", then why did Kevin present it as evidence ? ... and just as I suspected , neither one of you can supply the source ... but that's ok , the URL address said it all ... 911 LIES wasn't it ?

Its not my photo, so why should I know where it came from? You still lose Dunne. This building 6 explodes at 9:04am sillyness is toast. Another Jack White study bites the dust. You think he will admit his errors and withdraw this stuff from Aulis or do you think he will leave this blatant misinformation up? Honest men admit their mistakes and correct them.

On Edit:

Here ya go Duane, the webpage where the photo came from:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/

You want more info contact the owner of the webpage...

Actually, since you claim to have such an open mind and the uncanny ability to find the truth, I susggest your read the entire website and then offer us a detailed report on what you find.

And remember if you don't get back us in just a few hours, we will know that this webpage has you half-truthers on the run.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Kevin M. West]

Structural steel has manganese in it and not much chromium, that's not a lie, it's a fact. You can go look it up. That presentation says the opposite, that IS a lie, not a fact.

If you want to prove the official story is a lie, you'll need to do it with facts, not more lies. If the facts don't agree with your theory, maybe that should tell you something about your theory.

[Jack White]

Many of his claims are false for example it's simply not true that the "towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft," there design was reviewed and it was determined it could withstand a single impact from a 707. The is dispute about whether this study calculated for aplane at approach speed or 600 mph but the lead engineer says it was the latter.

That is also what I understand. It was not designed to withstand an impact, but the lead engineer said he believed it would be able to. The funny thing is there are no calculation to support this.

Towers' Design Parameters

Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's

Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.

The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1   Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200

fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons

max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs

empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs

wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft

wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2

length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft

cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Statements by Engineers

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3  

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4  

The Richard Roth Telegram

On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5  

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

...

4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.

...

5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6   Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 7   Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8  

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

References

1. Chapter 1: Introduction, WTC Building Performance Study,

2. Towers collapse shocks engineers, MedServ, 9/11/01 [cached]

3. Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93 [cached]

4. City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 131

5. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 134-136

6. Painful Losses Mount In the Construction 'Family', construction.com, 10/1/01 [cached]

7. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 133

8. How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964

[Duane Daman]

Structural steel has manganese in it and not much chromium, that's not a lie, it's a fact. You can go look it up. That presentation says the opposite, that IS a lie, not a fact.

If you want to prove the official story is a lie, you'll need to do it with facts, not more lies. If the facts don't agree with your theory, maybe that should tell you something about your theory.

The fact that 9/11 is not what the government has led us to believe , is not a " theory" , it's a fact .

Here are some FACTS for you .... Take a look , if you're not too afraid of what you might learn , which would be the truth of why the official version of 9/11 is the LIE .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7104676909578880157

[Duane Daman]

Sorry lamson , but I don't have the time or the intersest in reading more governmet lies or playing your game ... I have already heard enough lies and have to live with them every day of my life, under the current corrupt US administration .

The suspicious photo that Kevin posted here came from a government shill web site with these links ..

"Notable 9/11 Conspiracy Debunking Websites"

"Some 9/11 Conspiracy Debunkings on Video"

"World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"

So that answers the question about the validity of that particular photo .... "The LIES of the 9/11 TRUTH movement ... The irony of that statement would be funny , if not so tragic .

[Craig Lamson]

Sorry lamson , but I don't have the time or the intersest in reading more governmet lies or playing your game ... I have already heard enough lies and have to live with them every day of my life, under the current corrupt US administration .

The suspicious photo that Kevin posted here came from a government shill web site with these links ..

"Notable 9/11 Conspiracy Debunking Websites"

"Some 9/11 Conspiracy Debunkings on Video"

"World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"

So that answers the question about the validity of that particular photo .... "The LIES of the 9/11 TRUTH movement ... The irony of that statement would be funny , if not so tragic .

Wow that speaks volumes. Talk about an closed mind. You only read Half-truthers websites? So much for seeing both sides weighing the evidence and making an informed choice.

And then you post a link to a half-truther video.....sheesh