9/11

The first of the five video frames leaked in 2...

Image via Wikipedia

Research:

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/kevin-ryan-demolition-access-to-the-wtc-towers/

http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/

CIA Asset Susan Lindauer Can Now Speak 10 years after 9-11.

9/11: The Myth and the Reality – David Ray Griffin

A comprehensive 9/11 truth website – http://www.physics911.net/

My own posts:
Related articles

9 Responses to 9/11

  1. Lance says:
    September 8, 2011 at 22:15

    After having read some of the information on your website about 9/11 there is one ‘thing’ I definitely don’t believe, that a group of Muslim ‘terrorists’ flew airliners into the towers and the Pentagon.

    Reply
  2. Lance says:
    September 8, 2011 at 22:22

    I find it very hard to believe that a perfectly CLEAR video of the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile, or something of that nature, DOES NOT EXIST! The level of surveillance around the Pentagon is second to none, yet not one CLEAR video exists? Why are all the videos electronically blurred, i.e., ‘edited’, like the one above this reply box?

    Reply
    • Ken McMurtrie says:
      September 8, 2011 at 23:40

      They would, but you don’t expect the authorities to release them.
      If clear videos exist of a passenger plane hitting the Pentagon, you would think they would release them to counter our criticisms?
      What we are shown are doctored videos. All smoke and mirrors.

      Reply
      • Lance says:
        September 9, 2011 at 01:11

        So, even the video on this page of ‘something’ hitting the Pentagon is part of the ‘smoke and mirrors’?

  3. Ken McMurtrie says:
    September 9, 2011 at 10:20

    Ok, we need to be a bit more precise with our comments.

    “Officially”, the Pentagon was hit by a passenger aircraft, a Boeing 757. It is huge, flying fast and supposedly being flown by a first-time untrained pilot. It hit precisely at the level and location where it happened to destroy evidence showing government officials’ financial cheating.

    As you say Lance, the Pentagon has multiple video camera surveillance, also the service station across the road.

    Well may you ask, “where are the videos?”
    IF this official story is true, why do we not see some video to shut up the non-believers?
    I believe the videos do exist, unless deliberately destroyed. Either way, they are not available because they show, in reality, a single smaller (much) missile plunging into the Pentagon.
    It is obvious to anyone with eyesight that the damage to the Pentagon wall is a single roundish hole. Had the damage been done by an aircraft (757),the engines and wings would have crunched the walls either side of the hole. [Watch a video of the impact of a large plane on the WTC towers]. The Pentagon suffered no similar damage! This is a cut and dried scenario.

    Back to the blurred video we do get to see. IF it is deliberately blurred, it is a pretence that is actually an aircraft. If the video is genuine, the blurring can be because of the speed of the missile and the frame rate/resolution of the camera. There is no way to convince me that it is a blurred 757.
    The evidence of the ‘official story’, in total, being seriously incorrect, is vast and valid.
    Keep reading, Lance and all others wanting the truth.
    Alternately, just accept Obama’s word for it. He, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, never lie, do they?

    Reply
  4. anonymous says:
    February 14, 2014 at 06:59

    A new book on 9/11 is out. The author knew the Mossad agent who organised the events of that day.

    Dimitri Khalezov has spent 10 years researching and writing this book. Download links:

    Or read at:

    In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can’t build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center’s demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex.

    Khalezov learned of this demolition plan from his job in the Soviet Union. He had worked in the nuclear intelligence unit and under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA, each country was obliged to inform the other of peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The WTC was built with 3 thermo-nuclear charges in its foundations.

    Note: underground nuclear explosions do not produce mushroom clouds. This is only ever seen when the explosion takes place above ground. On 9/11, the explosions were deep underground.

    More info:
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm

    You can watch the 2010 interview at:
    http://www.disclose.tv/forum/dimitri-khalezov-wtc-nuclear-demolition-full-playlist-t21675.html
    Video # 4 – WTC’s demolition plan
    Video # 14 – WTC 7 (which fell ½ hour AFTER the BBC announced its collapse).
    Videos # 24/25 – chronic radiation sickness of WTC responders (their cancers are not due to asbestos poisoning)

    Khalezov was interviewed on 4 Sept 2013:
    http://www.renseradioarchives.com/harris/

    Here is a recent article mentioning Khalezov:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/mossad-bush-planned-executed-911/

    I know it is preposterous to claim that the WTC was brought down by nukes. But note that the place where the WTC once stood is called ‘Ground Zero’. If you look up the meaning of ‘ground zero’ in the old dictionaries you have at home, you’ll find that there would only be one definition. It is what you call a place that has been nuked.

    After 9/11, the US government sent people out to switch all the dictionaries in the public domain. The replacements differed only in the meaning of ‘ground zero’. They show extra definitions for that term, to obfuscate the original single meaning.

    For example, if you have a genuine old Merriam-Webster dictionary, you would see this:
    ground zero n (1946) : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.

    The replacement books (even of old editions) show two extra definitions and this is what you’ll see:
    ground zero n (1946) 1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs. 2: the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change 3: the very beginning : SQUARE ONE

    Have a look at this video:

    At 6:05 mins, he shows the old and new definitions of ‘ground zero’.

    Reply
  5. Ken McMurtrie says:
    June 19, 2022 at 14:52

    Some more information, further supporting the obvious evidence of “inside ” complicity, at the very least! http://www.physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf

    Reply

Leave a comment