In light of NIST’s WTC7 report, it would be good to have a look at DRG’s excellent debunking of the widely held misconception that a document by scientists makes it an ipso facto scientific document. From page 23 of “Debunking 911 Debunking:”
___________________________________________________________________________________
Having looked at two ways in which people, as illustrated by journalists, can avoid confronting the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, I now look at a third: the assumption that if an explanation is given by scientists, it is a scientific explanation.
In our critical moments, we know that this is not neccessarily true. We know that there have been scientists who were willing to prostitute themselves – to fudge the truth for the sake of money, which in some cases might simply mean to keep their jobs. We even know that some scienists have done this with regard to global warming, an issue that threatens the very survival of human civilization. We should be aware, accordingly, that if 9/11 was orchestrated by our own government, there would be scientists on the government’s payroll, or on the payroll of companies heavily dependent on government contracts, who would provie false accounts of the collapses of the WTC buildings or the damage to the Pentagon. There is, nevertheless, a widespread tendency to assume that if some explanation is provided by scientists, it must be a scientific explanation. An explanation should be considered scientific, however, only if it exemplifies certain standard criteria.
article continues below
One criterion,often expressed by speaking of scientific method as involving “inference to the best explanation,” is that the explanation has been shown to be superior to the other possible hypotheses. Scientists cannot say: “We assumed that A was the cause of X. We then found a way that A might have caused X. We were happy with this explanation. So we didn’t consider hypothesis B, which some other people had suggested.” And yet, as shown in Chapter 3, this is exactly the method used by the scientists who wrote the NIST report.
To be sure, scientists can often in practice get away with using that method if their resulting explanation fulfills the most important of all riteria – that the explanation be consistent with all of the relevant evidence. If it is not, then the explanation is said to be falsified. Or, to be more precise, the explanation must be consistent with *virtually* all the evidence. It is usually considered acceptable to have a few “anomalies” – phenomena that it is asumed, will eventually be shown to be consistent with the theory. But an explanation cannot be considered scientific if it must classify the MAJORITY of the evidence as anomalous.
__________________________________________________________________________________
And on page 144, upon introducing his chapter debunking NIST:
__________________________________________________________________________________
The content of these documents will also be less surprising insofar as readers are aware of the Bush administration’s record with regard to science. Already in 2003, the editor of “Science” spoke of growing evidence that the Bush administration has undermined the scientific integrity at federal agencies by “invad[ing] areas once immune to this kind of manipulation.” Later that year, the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform published a document entitled “Politics and Science in the Bush Administration.” It described “numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings.” In 2004, a statement accusing the Bush administration of engaging in “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends” was signed by 62 renowned scientists; by December 2006, this statement had been signed by over 10,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. If agencies of the Bush administration would produced flawed scientific analyses to promote the administration’s agend on issues such as the environment and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, as the studies show, then it would hardly be surprising that a Bush administration agency would produce a scientifically flawed report to rebut evidence that this administration was responsible for treason and mass murder.
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 am
OH MY GOD!
This site cracks me up sometimes. Paul Watson loves to talk about how these few scientists (who are usually in the employ of fossil fuel companies or their astroturf “think tanks”) are trying to expose the lies told by tens of thousands of scientists world wide.
Then an article such as this shows up with this in it:
“We know that there have been scientists who were willing to prostitute themselves – to fudge the truth for the sake of money, which in some cases might simply mean to keep their jobs. We even know that some scienists have done this with regard to global warming, an issue that threatens the very survival of human civilization.”
When it supports their beliefs regarding 9/11, it is “truth telling” – say the same thing in regards to AGW, and it is a “hoax” or “lies” or “NWO disinformation”!
With regard to the NIST WTC7 report, I have to agree that that report smells of just this kind of scientific prostitution (just like most of the anti-AGW articles on this site!) and is full of unsupported assertions that on the face of it are ridiculous.
In one case, they claim it would be impossible to take 100lbs of Thermite/Thermate into a building without detection. The obvious response to that is “detection by whom?” Clearly people come and go into large busy buildings like WTC7 all the time. Put the people into workmen’s clothes and they could easily carry in TONS of the stuff without anyone noticing! Especially if done over a period of time and with the cover of building occupants.
It seems to me that that part of the report is founded on an assumption that is not supportable: that the people doing this would be doing it without the knowledge and permission of at least one of the building’s tenants or the owners.
Sure, it might be hard for TERRORISTS to sneak thermite into WTC7 and plant it, but if they have fully authorised “work orders” from the building management, who would notice? They could come in the middle of the night as “maintenance” teams and no one would ever know.
Basically, the NIST report did not rule out thermite/thermate EXCEPT by saying that it would have been detected, regardless of the fact that the claim is that the building owners at least were IN on the plan and thus would have made it possible for such “work” to seem to anyone else to be normal.
They also run on the assumption that to bring down the building the thermite/thermate would have to melt lots of steel, right after claiming that melting of the steal was not necessary to bring down the building!
They say an uncontrolled low temperature fire could do it, but carefully placed thermite couldn’t. Contradictions like this abound in “junk science” such as the anti-AGW bullshit. For example the Sun is supposed to be causing warming, but at the same time the Sun has been getting weaker and thus is leading to cooling! How can it be both? It can’t, but by throwing pseudo-scientific bullshit like that around they confuse the public (which of course is what they want).
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 am
LOL What wild stuff about WTC7. Trusses and fire do not mix add to that substantial damage from the towers and the rest is a sad history. Even Ron Paul called the whole mess of 9-11 “Blow Back” and your grasping at straws rather than proving who hijacked the planes.
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 am
Did WTC7 fall faster than what the Law for the Speed of Gravity dictates? If yes, then all NIST’s babble rings mute in my ears. It sure looked like it fell faster than it should have. Anyone?
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:54 am
I’ve argued with a friend who was spoonfed the gaping hole story. I’ve always questioned how the southside of WTC7 could have received the amount (However you want to define the extent of damage) of damage it aquired. The government story stipulates that the damage to the southside of WTC7 was the result of the towers falling and it was debris from those towers that caused the damage to this side of WTC7. Well, alrighty then. Between WTC7 and the towers were two other buildings (WTC5 and 6) and they got clobbered more. But, you know what. They didn’t fall down. So the argument goes on.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:57 am
I think I read in the NIST Report: “The thermal expansion of the metal structure, due to fires that weren’t adequately kept from rapid thermal expansion due to the sprinkler system being deactivated (water diverted to fire operations at Towers 1 and 2), and also due to the added stress of heat applied from FEMA personel roasting marsh mellows in the vicinity of the WTC complex the day before, added a full 24 hours of additional heat to the metal complex and this was a phenomenom that was quite unique to typical fire/collapse dynamics that we claim to have studied in the past”
Thanks NIST. Smokey The Bear would be so proud of your findings/dillusions
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
According to Sham Sounder, at a speech in 2002 from URL http://www.philsoc.org/2002Fall/2148minutes.html :
Minutes of the 2148th Meeting
Speaker: S. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Topic: “Building and Fire Safety: Response to the World Trade Center Disaster”
President Collins called the 2148th meeting of the Philosophical Society of Washington to order at 8:20 p.m. on September 13, 2002. The Recording Secretary read the minutes of the 2146th meeting and they were approved.
The speaker for the 2148th meeting was S. Shyam Sunder of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The title of his presentation was, “Building and Fire Safety: Response to the World Trade Center Disaster.”
——————————————————————————–
Just about a year ago, on September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York City crashing commercial aircraft into the 110-story World Trade Center towers. The damage to the buildings caused by the impacts combined with the ensuing fires ignited by the jet fuel, led both buildings to collapse killing more than 2800 people. More than 350 fire and emergency responders were among those killed. This was the largest loss of life for this group in a single incident. The death and destruction was unprecedented in the United States and the worst building disaster in human history.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), at the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and in consultation with local New York City authorities, initiated an effort to understand what led to the structural failure and subsequent progressive collapse of the World Trade Center buildings and use the lessons learned to better protect people and property in the future, enhance the safety of fire and emergency responders, and restore public confidence in the safety of tall buildings nationwide.
To this end, NIST proposed a response plan consisting of three key program elements to be conducted in parallel.
First, accomplish a 24-month building and fire safety investigation into the factors contributing to the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 – and the associated loss of life and injuries.
Second, do a multi-year research and development program to provide the technical bases for improved building and fire codes, standards, and practices.
Third, perform an industry-led dissemination and technical assistance program to provide practical guidance and tools to better prepare facility owners, contractors, designers, and emergency personnel to respond to future disasters.
The speaker described the background for the NIST plan in the context of the events of September 11, 2001 and the lessons expected to be derived to reduce future vulnerabilities. The initial NIST analyses included reviews and assessments of photos and videos and used relatively simple mathematical calculations. The size and shape of the smoke plume helped to identify the strength of the source of the fire, on the order of estimated at a giga watt which is about the same as a typical output of a central power station. The size of the initial fireballs was used to determine how much of the jet fuel landed on the outside of the buildings of the WTC and burned off in a matter of minutes. It was this initial fuel burn that ignited the building contents, such as carpets, paper, furniture, etc. This provided most of the heat that weakened the remaining structures and led to eventual collapse.
The initial analysis results showed the 110 story towers collapsed due to damage induced by the high-speed impact of the aircraft and the weakening effect of the subsequent fires. Here, the first impact was at about 400 mph and the second at 500 mph while flying at an altitude of about 1,000 feet. The first tower collapsed after 56 minutes and the second after 1 hour and 43 minutes. Seismic readings showed that it took about 13 seconds for the buildings to collapse. The speaker pointed out that a rock would fall from a corresponding height in about 9 seconds. Thus, the buildings were essentially in free fall, indicating near total lack of structural resistance.
The massive damage extended to World Trade Center 7, a nearby 47-story building which burned and collapsed at 5:20pm. Ironically, this building housed offices of the New York City Office of Emergency Management and emergency generators with several fuel tanks which ignited. The resulting fire caused pivotal structural members to fail and the total collapse of the building. This was the first building in history to collapse due almost solely to fire. Similarly, World Trade Center 5, a 9-story building and the 22-story nearby Marriot Tower were destroyed. In all about, more than 20 million square feet of commercial rental space were lost.
So, according to the Sham:
Black (oxygen-starved) smoke output of one of the twin towers= 1 gigawatt.
1 gigawatt = Output of a power station
Transitive law postulates that:
WTC Black (oxygen-starved) smoke ouput = Total power output of a poer station.
Let’s that convert that gigawatt to horse power….(Watts/746)
Booga! Booga! VERY scary!!…..
OOOH! That Oxygen starved office smoke = 1.34 MegaHP!
Wow! So everybody remember what you learned from “the Sham” according to the laws of 2002 (which were radically different from 2001 and also radically different on 8/21/08.
Transitive Law: A = B = C
Sham Sounder Law: 2001 =/= 2002 =/= 2008
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
AlphaOmega, ignorance is bliss isn’t it? Well you are losing your country and your freedoms due to the 9/11 FALSE FLAG. A dip shit like you deserves to be a slave, but the rest of us want to save the Republic and get our freedoms back.
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Hey AlphaOmega, trusses and fires DO mix for quite some time, especially given the temperatures of structural fires – with or without the conbustion of jet fuel, and that is precisely why they are used in highrise building construction. If your thoery held any truth, you would then say that I could symmetrically and evenly roast a marshmallow on all sides with a hair blowdryer. Number one, it doesn’t generate sufficient heat to roast the marshmallow, and number two, if it did, it wouldn’t roast evenly on all sides. This is why you have to turn the marshmallow even while over an open flame. Maybe there’s an analogy you can grasp.
Just as on 9/11, firefighters have done interior attacks of highrise fires for decades. You seem to insist that ANY temperature increase, no matter the duration of exposure, will potentially cause the symmetrical and simultaneous failure of a highrise bilding that has many structural steel supporting columns. If your silliness had a shred of truth to it, no interior highrise firefighting attacks would ever be permitted, and the entire operation would be simply become a race to facilitate rescue/evacuation not only of the building, but of the potential surounding footprint that could be affected by the “assured” structural collapse. Someone mentioned on another article that they thought you were paid to post your comments. I find that hard to believe. If you are being paid, no matter how much, those paying you are getting nothing for their money.
Oh, and I want to say, “nice post,” Jim. Nice to have some measured, educated responses mixed in with the general craziness. The only problem is that you’re confusing people like AlphaOmega with scientific facts, which have no relevance in his world. The metalurgical properties of construction grade structural steel don’t require that he even be aware of the quest for a Grand Unified Theory, yet those basic properties that are relied upon around the world in thousands of highrise building projects are beyond his scope of understanding – or acceptance.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Hey everybody,is the new world order is using computer outgas to sicken us. I don’t know if I believe it, I love using the internet. But this guy is saying that The chemicals that come off our computers are endocrine disruptors, immunotoxins, neurotoxins and cause cancer in lab animals, and that we inhale these chemicals. Could this be why some people feel like crap when they use a computer for a long time?
check out this site I found. he says he’s found a way to not inhale the chemicals.
http://www.rawair.net
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Hey asdf1234, I actually find that I only feel sick after using a computer when I was online reading the NIST report and the posts of people defending its scientific accuracy. Sometimes, I also get indigestion and gas from it. Luckily for me, the release of this heated gas has so far failed to raise the temperature of the structural members of my home sufficiently to cause its symmetrical collapse, but I suppose as we read in the NIST report, anything is possible, and I should from now on step outside. Come to think of it, my wife has made that suggestion for years.
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
People should start writing e-mails and letters to celebrities and ask why they aren’t doing anything about the world!! ..only few have said anything about 9-11 INSIDEJOB.
Polite e-mails with say, YouTube links..
the silent ones and the supposed “more enlightent” people who you/we could write to:
Madonna
Bono
Bob Dylan ..nothing wrong whit the gov. nowadays huh?
Roger Waters…
P-diddy
Pearl Jam
TOOL
Rage against the MAchine guys
System of a down
..any one else?! i bet there are tons
Who’s hot in Hollywood?
Richard Gere is a buddhist..
Susan Sarandon
Tim Robbins
Wesley Snipes ..should be quite pissed off
Morgan Freeman
Johnny Depp
Keanu Reeves
..to name a few
..basicly anyone who has been “pro” something..i’m sure they’d like to be pro freedom and peace too.
These are the people who can reach people, you know?!
Alot of people sit infront of computers all day and write a lot, so how about writing a nice and polite e-mail about 9-11 TRUTH to these people.
9/11 Chronicles Part One: Truth Rising :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yscpNIxjI
Could be a good idea to send this link to them so they’d know it’s mostly the young un-known people who have to do all the work and put them selves on the line while they make their movies or recording ther upcoming album
Write to celebs.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Did Planes Really Crash Into the WTC Towers on 911?
Contrary to NIST & the US Government, there is overwhelming evidence to conclude that the planes seen on TV were the result of SFX special effects (TV fakery).
Many try to suppress this obvious fact, but to exclude other theories out of hand w/o examination is not only disingenuous, it’s simply denial (a defence mechanism) and only results in a misinformed, skewed opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0XrU70Lc-U
There were no planes entering the WTC Towers on 911. Perhaps all the related films about 911 produced before and since were made to condition the public into acceptance of the official “planes” fantasy. Any discussion of planes on 911, passengers, hijackers, etc. all continue to help keep the fantasy alive.
Believing the government’s fairytale of planes colliding with the Towers is the main problem w/ fully understanding 911. The media was broadcasting fake, manipulated images of planes. Superimposing a plane on 911 was done w/ Wescam technology; it provided a single “live” feed from which all the TV networks broadcast. Other videos & images started to appear in the days, weeks & months following 911. All of them have anomalies & impossibilities which can only be explained by excluding planes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xpUKwpwSRwc
Real planes would have been a potential liability for the perps on 911. It was easier to control the outcome of the event with much less risk by using the media to broadcast fake imagery. Real jets might miss their targets, get shot down, suffer pilot or computer errors, destroy or prematurely detonate any explosives, passengers could have overtaken the hijackers, and/or the plane might not inflict enough perceived damage to make a collapse believable.
A single fact which cannot be refuted is that a hollow aluminum plane (especially fragile wings) cannot slice through steel beams and concrete without any damage to the plane. News footage showing an airliner gliding into a Tower without any resistance is a cartoon. Aluminum planes are not built for impact and crumple immediately upon contact with solid objects; even a small bird can rip through a jet’s wing.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MCVwuf_AMFs
Furthermore, a large speeding jet’s vortex trails behind it creating a highly active atmosphere which follows in its path. Had a real plane impacted a WTC Tower, real film footage would have recorded the airliner’s vortex interacting with and violently dissipating the smoke from the alleged crash and the adjacent North Tower. No vortex literally means no planes on 911 (TV fakery).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlj1mVD2-HM
During the South Tower “impact”, fake TV footage shows a WTC Tower sealing itself around the plane during the alleged penetration. Still another too incredible to believe anomaly is the width of the plane’s purported gash didn’t match the width of a Boeing 757’s wing span. Another widely publicized video shot by Scott Myers shows the forward fuselage of the “jet” exiting the South Tower, though other shots later reveal no exit hole.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NCLL6h6-vvc
To consider the media footage showing a plane slicing thru steel and concrete as reality is ludicrous. There were no planes; only spoofed images, manipulated witnesses and falsified evidence. America please wake up; the media was a complicit partner that was in on the crime from the beginning. In fact, the TV psyop 911 couldn’t have been pulled off without the mass media’s assistance.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eoxaU16MntM
Actually “no planes on 911″ is the only explanation that makes any sense. There are far too many disturbing questions left unanswered which only TV fakery can address.
Besides all the other impossibilities mentioned, why are there several “hijackers” still alive; some are even suing the US government to recover their reputation and stolen identity.
Why have so many of the purported plane “victims” not been listed in the Social Security Death Index? …and their families not claimed their death benefits.
Why are there missing passenger lists and zero so-called Middle Eastern hijacker names on the flight manifest?
Why in the entire history of aviation has a plane never disappeared from a crash – yet on 911, four of them did in a single day? All plane parts are numbered; not one plane part from 911 has been identified by its number.
How could supposedly inexperienced “pilots” who couldn’t even fly a Cessna…
* threaten & subdue everyone on board a large airliner
* break into the locked cockpits w/ their hands
* kill all the ex-military pilots and copilots
…then navigate a large Boeing jetliner above the clouds all over several states without airport tower assistance, with nav systems & radios turned off, and fly with pinpoint accuracy into a building that they couldn’t even see?
It’s common knowledge amongst pilots that a Boeing 757 cannot fly at 500+ MPH at sea level – the air is too thick. That’s an airliner’s cruising speed attained at high 30,000+ ft. altitudes.
You can call Boeing; even they admit that – and they have been recorded in phone conversations recently saying so.
When an airliner is close to the ground it’s either taking off or landing. If forced to throttle to cruising speed at low altitude, it would break apart in mid-air.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY
Exposing “no planes on 911″ is probably the most important story to people beyond chemtrails, depleted uranium poisoning and nanotech genocide.
Americans are TV hypnotized, drugged up, dumbed down and so utterly dependent that in general they are incapable of critical thought and are disinterested in discovering how the media is adversely affecting their lives.
No planes on 911 and deception by the media is the Holy Grail of 911. It marks the beginning of an Orwellian double-speak mind-set which is now accepted as normal by the populace.
No-planes on 911 is highly important as it exposes the real perps behind this mass murder and offers justice to the thousands of people killed that day.
Without the covert deception by the media in collusion with the enemy in control of America’s military intelligence, 911 could not have happened.
The media was directly involved in 911 and together with a criminal government has helped diminish Americans’ freedoms and launch unending wars against innocent nations.
Don’t even consider making another comment on 911 till you have watched the “September Clues” video series:
http://www.livevideo.com/video.....part1.aspx
With so much evidence pointing to collusion between the military industrial complex, the US government and especially the media, very few have sought relief in the court systems, or via conventional mass media. Morgan Reynolds has filed numerous suits in federal court to no avail. His latest attempt and subsequent appeal were both summarily squashed before having even been properly heard. You can read the details on his website.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911
If one seeks only that evidence which fits the official explanation, then that is what you will find. That’s not science, it’s not objective thinking, it’s not even good common sense.
It is impossible in the real world for a plane to behave in such manner as per the official account. So long as you continue to deny that one simple concept you will be forever lost in endless pursuit of an answer that will never come.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....ng_videos/
# # #
August 24th, 2008 at 10:48 am
http://www.onemorepromethean.c.....-collapse/
August 24th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I will ‘Never Forget’ the first thought that came into my mind when I saw the Twin Towers smoking on 9/11.
That thought was “Damn those Israelis.”
August 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Discovering the truth about the US government’s criminal behavior, both in the past and in the present, causes many Americans to experience ‘cognitive dissonance’, and denial is common for these people. It’s like discovering that one or both of your parents is a serial killer.
Many, if not most, Americans now recognize that the US government’s rationale for the Iraq War, which has already resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 US troops and the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqis (by the most conservative of estimates), was based on lies that were generated by the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House.
To those who doubt that the US government would have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks to create an excuse for the Iraq War, I ask this: “If the US government would lie to start a war that has killed more than 4,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis, why would you assume that the US government would not also stage the 9/11 attacks to provide an excuse to launch that same war of aggression?” I seems pretty naive to me to think that the US government that lied to start the Iraq War would not also commit the 9/11 attacks to provide an excuse to start that same War.
9/11/2008 was not the first time that the US government staged a false flag attack on US citizens and US troops to provide an excuse to launch a war of aggression. In 1898 the US government blew up its own battleship, the Maine, in Havana Harbor, killing 266 US seamen, in order to create an excuse for the USA to launch a war of aggression against Spain, in which the USA siezed control of the Spanish colonies of Cuba, Peuerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Photographs of the Maine’s hull show that the explosion came from within the hull, not from the outside, proving that the US government’s ‘Official Version’, which blamed a Spanish bomb attack for the destruction of the Maine, was a lie.
– Gregory Fegel
August 24th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
If you have the courage to face Truth once and for all, for yourself, for your family, for our children’s children, if you can handle the truth, presented in a no-nonsense manner, with no ulterior motive, simply TRUTH. An awesome connecting of the dots that is so empowering, so life-changing, it will literally give you an edge every day for the rest of your life because you will be free from the web of lies that you didn’t even know you were entangled in. Even if you have seen many revealing documentaries exposing NWO agendas, you will be speechless for an hour or two after you watch “ring of power” on redicecreations.com , IT WILL CHANGE YOU ON THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF YOUR BEING. it is free to watch so please check it out and get as many people as you can to watch it. we must wake them up one by one. ALEX JONES NEEDS OUR HELP, TELL PEOPLE ABOUT PRISON PLANET, BUY FABLED ENEMIES and spread the info salvo! LIVE FREE – DIE HARD !
August 24th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
The jets that hit the towers…Try watching 911 Ripple Effect. On Google Video. Look at the bottom of the 2nd jet. A 767, 757, 747 or 707 doesn’t have anything that looks like that! And the crystal clear picture proves that wasn’t a commercial jet.
Until everyone educates themselves? The suckers of television will keep on shooting off their mouths. And not proving a damn thing. (Just looking stupid to the educated people.)
911 Mysteries, Loose Change, 911 Justice and 911 Ripple Effect are the best evidence. All four have too much FACTS that no government or CFR puppet can ignore. Are you a sheeple? Ready to follow the scum of the earth to police state 101? Or are you an American who wants the truth? And is ready to fight for your FREEDOM?
911? THEY USED TO BURN OUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS. Time to take it back!