Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Explosive Deconstruction Theory
Posted on 08:34 by Unknown
Top Down Collapse Theory
Posted on 08:22 by Unknown
Exploring the "top down crush theory"
Related:
Explosive Deconstruction Theory
WTC comparisons with controlled demolitions
Related:
Explosive Deconstruction Theory
WTC comparisons with controlled demolitions
Debunking the Debunking of the Debunkery of September Clues
Posted on 03:47 by Unknown
Here is a recent attempted debunking of a video I put together back in 2009 followed by my original video.
Debunking the Debunkery Jason Bermas & September Clues 9/11:
Note how the rebuttal video skips the section showing how the supposed nose of the plane is just an expulsion of debris. The video then goes on to ask the question "Why no Shiney planes?" Well the way the shadows were that day the planes don't look shiny, but the other videos I show, including amateur footage, all have a plane in them. So here is a better question posed by Jason in my video, "Why is there no footage showing a building exploding without a plane hitting it?" Only one such video has been touted as such, but it it is simply a matter of low-resolution video. Skip to 4:08 in the following video to see for yourself; the whole video is worth watching though.
It is also asked, "Wheres the debris?" Answer: seen flying out of the building in the "nose out" rebuttal, in the picture in my video of part of the fuselage on the roof of Building 5, in the picture in my video of a piece of landing gear on a building three blocks north of the WTC, and in a picture in my video of a piece of a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engine found on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC, which you show with the caption, "And what exactly is this find?"
There are good empirical arguments that this engine piece is as stated, but the argument that the engine is the wrong type makes no sense on an a priori basis as well. As poster "Edx" asked on the JREF forum, "...Why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?"
And as Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.wtc7.net, "The majority of Flight 175 and the vast majority of Flight 11 remains were trapped in the towers."
The rebuttal video then states, "Folks did say they had heard an explosion alright.. But no one talked about the engine noise, why is that." This point and others are debunked in this video by blog contributor Adam Taylor:
Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials for my and Adam's videos:
DEBUNKING “SEPTEMBER CLUES” - A POINT-BY-POINT ANALYSIS
Jason Bermas Debunks September Clues
Nose out hoax
Immortal Technique - Creation And Destruction - Instrumental.
9/11 Myths - Further debunking of the 9/11 TV Fakery 'nose out' claim
I got your nose
New Release of Second Plane Hitting WTC
My WTC Videos
9/11 — Plane Impacts: Real or Faked?
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
More pictures show aircraft parts at WTC after 9/11
How can an aluminum airplane punch through a steel building...
09 - Oddites - The Beats of Loose Change
9/11 No Planer - Open your eyes - War Planes vs Metal
No-Planes / Tv-Fakery theory demolished!
911 'No-Planes' Conspirators Seek To Sabotage Truth
The plane does decelerate:
Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower
The F=MA argument
No "TV Fakery":
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Letter Added to A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis
DEBUNKING “SEPTEMBER CLUES” A POINT-BY-POINT ANALYSIS
September Clues - Busted! U-Tube version
South Towers Anomalies -- Busted!
Impossible speed? No:
Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175
9/11: Impossible Speed & Impact -- Busted!
9/11: Possible or Impossible Speed?
Can planes penetrate steel structures? Yes:
9/11 No Planer Open your eyes War Planes vs Steel
There were reliable witnesses to the crashes:
No Planes Theory: R.I.P.
9/11 — Plane Impacts: Real or Faked?
Debunking the Debunkery Jason Bermas & September Clues 9/11:
Note how the rebuttal video skips the section showing how the supposed nose of the plane is just an expulsion of debris. The video then goes on to ask the question "Why no Shiney planes?" Well the way the shadows were that day the planes don't look shiny, but the other videos I show, including amateur footage, all have a plane in them. So here is a better question posed by Jason in my video, "Why is there no footage showing a building exploding without a plane hitting it?" Only one such video has been touted as such, but it it is simply a matter of low-resolution video. Skip to 4:08 in the following video to see for yourself; the whole video is worth watching though.
It is also asked, "Wheres the debris?" Answer: seen flying out of the building in the "nose out" rebuttal, in the picture in my video of part of the fuselage on the roof of Building 5, in the picture in my video of a piece of landing gear on a building three blocks north of the WTC, and in a picture in my video of a piece of a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engine found on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC, which you show with the caption, "And what exactly is this find?"
There are good empirical arguments that this engine piece is as stated, but the argument that the engine is the wrong type makes no sense on an a priori basis as well. As poster "Edx" asked on the JREF forum, "...Why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?"
And as Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.wtc7.net, "The majority of Flight 175 and the vast majority of Flight 11 remains were trapped in the towers."
The rebuttal video then states, "Folks did say they had heard an explosion alright.. But no one talked about the engine noise, why is that." This point and others are debunked in this video by blog contributor Adam Taylor:
Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials for my and Adam's videos:
DEBUNKING “SEPTEMBER CLUES” - A POINT-BY-POINT ANALYSIS
Jason Bermas Debunks September Clues
Nose out hoax
Immortal Technique - Creation And Destruction - Instrumental.
9/11 Myths - Further debunking of the 9/11 TV Fakery 'nose out' claim
I got your nose
New Release of Second Plane Hitting WTC
My WTC Videos
9/11 — Plane Impacts: Real or Faked?
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
More pictures show aircraft parts at WTC after 9/11
How can an aluminum airplane punch through a steel building...
09 - Oddites - The Beats of Loose Change
9/11 No Planer - Open your eyes - War Planes vs Metal
No-Planes / Tv-Fakery theory demolished!
911 'No-Planes' Conspirators Seek To Sabotage Truth
The plane does decelerate:
Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower
The F=MA argument
No "TV Fakery":
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Letter Added to A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis
DEBUNKING “SEPTEMBER CLUES” A POINT-BY-POINT ANALYSIS
September Clues - Busted! U-Tube version
South Towers Anomalies -- Busted!
Impossible speed? No:
Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175
9/11: Impossible Speed & Impact -- Busted!
9/11: Possible or Impossible Speed?
Can planes penetrate steel structures? Yes:
9/11 No Planer Open your eyes War Planes vs Steel
There were reliable witnesses to the crashes:
No Planes Theory: R.I.P.
9/11 — Plane Impacts: Real or Faked?
Petition: Add Cancer To The James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act
Posted on 03:18 by Unknown
Video posted by Jon Gold, author of "The Facts Speak for Themselves."
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has suggested that the health problems of the first responders might just be another "Gulf War Syndrome." Nope Pat, they are suffering from cancer and you can't prove it isn't a result of 9/11. And the existence of Gulf War Syndrome has not been debunked either.
9/11 First Responders Need Cancer Treatment Coverage!
Support 9/11 first responders in their struggle. Demand that the Zadroga Act cover cancer as part of its protections.
SIGN THE PETITION.
Shop at Amazon.com through this widget and 100% of the sales commission goes directly to the FealGood Foundation.
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has suggested that the health problems of the first responders might just be another "Gulf War Syndrome." Nope Pat, they are suffering from cancer and you can't prove it isn't a result of 9/11. And the existence of Gulf War Syndrome has not been debunked either.
9/11 First Responders Need Cancer Treatment Coverage!
Support 9/11 first responders in their struggle. Demand that the Zadroga Act cover cancer as part of its protections.
SIGN THE PETITION.
Shop at Amazon.com through this widget and 100% of the sales commission goes directly to the FealGood Foundation.
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Core Of Corruption 2: Echoes of Treason - Official Trailers
Posted on 20:15 by Unknown
"Even information provided by the debunkers will be examined."
Core Of Corruption 2: Echoes of Treason - Official Trailer from Phil Anthropy on Vimeo.
Related:
Core Of Corruption Volume 1: In The Shadows {Full Film}
Jim Corr Omits Info about Roaring Fires in WTC 7
Monday, 6 February 2012
David in Los Angeles, CA Writes...
Posted on 13:26 by Unknown
hi there, just wanted to take a minute and say how much i appreciate your 9/11 truth site. Your research and all the details of evidence you provide are excellent. Like yourselves, i take the more conservative views of the 9/11 movement and try to stick with the refutations of the official story, rather than on speculations of what might have happened (like the various pentagon theories). Your blog has been a valuable resource for me as i also have taken a strong interest in the "debunking the debunkers" side of things. Still to this day, the strongest evidence to me is how the government and it's supporters argue their case (straw men, ad hominem, ridicule and insults) and how they have hid or destroyed much of the evidence as well as suppressed testimonies in the Commission hearings and silenced the whistleblowers. This is all VERY revealing and i think that if this were a case on a trial, with a jury, their fraud and deception would be plainly evident (to anyone with a critical thinking cap on that is).Anyway, thank you so much for all your hard work, research and putting the debunkers in their place. Also thank you for correcting much of the misinformation and/or disinformation out there. peace to you and keep fighting the fight..i support you all 100%!
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Jesse Ventura: 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read Audio Book
Posted on 12:40 by Unknown
Yes, Ventura has endorsed the theory that Directed Energy Weapons were used to demolish the buildings on 9/11 and the theory that the plane that hit the Pentagon actually flew over it while a bomb exploded, and no he doesn't always have all his facts as straight as we like around here. That said, he does promote a lot of good 9/11 and other info that is widely distributed to the masses. So rather than ignore him we opt to point these things out and hope people find our blog through searching for him and then are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, here is his entire latest book, 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read, in audio format.
Click here to skip to the 9/11 section on YouTube.
The rest of the 9/11 section can be heard in the beginning of part 2 of 2:
Video from AE911Truth:
Click here to see attempted an debunking of this program debunked.
Related:
Jesse Ventura: American Conspiracies Audio Book
Debunking the Only Bad Review of "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7"
Economics Professor and 9/11 truth advocate Paul Zarembka has written that the work of Mike Williams at the debunking site 911myths.com has caused him "to reconsider [his] prior conclusion of high probability of insider trading in put options"
The June 1 Order - Questions about Changes in Intercept Authority Prior to the Attack
Click here to skip to the 9/11 section on YouTube.
The rest of the 9/11 section can be heard in the beginning of part 2 of 2:
Video from AE911Truth:
Click here to see attempted an debunking of this program debunked.
Related:
Jesse Ventura: American Conspiracies Audio Book
Debunking the Only Bad Review of "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7"
Economics Professor and 9/11 truth advocate Paul Zarembka has written that the work of Mike Williams at the debunking site 911myths.com has caused him "to reconsider [his] prior conclusion of high probability of insider trading in put options"
The June 1 Order - Questions about Changes in Intercept Authority Prior to the Attack
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
