Kerry was talking about a "WALL", not WTC7!

“I haven’t heard that, I don’t know that, I do know that err, that wall I remember was in danger, and they made a decision based on the danger… did it in a controlled fashion.”

He's not talking about wtc7, everyone else is, but he's talking about some "wall" that he remembers. Why are prison planet, as much as I respect them for the most part, saying this is his "conclusion" about wtc7? This makes us look pretty stupid and like classical "conspiracy theorists" clutching at statements and twisting them to mean falsely sensational things.

"Massachusetts Senator's conclusion directly contradicts 9/11 official story"

^ Not smart!


Q: Also, a question I had for you. Uh... World Trade Center 7 was brought down uh... on September 11th at 5:20 in the evening. Uh... the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex, Larry Silverstein, gave a public interview on PBS in 2002, and he said that they pulled that building, which is a demolition term for intentionally bringing down a building. This man made over $5B from those buildings' destruction, and I want to know if there was ever a formal investigation into Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex, and his ties to this entire event....

A: I don't believe there's been a formal investigation. I haven't heard that, I don't know that. I do know that uh... tha... that wall I remember wa... was in danger, and I think that they made a decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion. Ya know, he's part of the construction, reconstruction effort for the memorial, and the use of the land, etc... there's been a long tug-of-war going on in New York. I am not following every aspect of it because it's not in my jurisdiction, so to speak, but I'll check on what the story is... (inaudible) Oh I'll take a look at it based on what you said.

The way it reads to me, Kerry was talking about WTC7, but I think he was referring to the "official account" of damage to that one side. Of course, the "official account" doesn't mention anything about "in a controlled fashion."

I don't know. I do know that his statement about how he'll "take a look at it" is bs. I do know that if he is claiming this is the "first time" he's heard of it, that that also is probably bs.

I do think, however, it is healthy to voice an opposing view.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Just an FYI...

On various political lists that I am on, this article has been circulated around in which Senator John F. Kerry stated that Building 7 was deliberately demolished. Instead of taking that article on face value, I went straight to the horse’s mouth so to speak. I called up Senator Kerry’s office and an aid that I spoke with knew of this article being circulated and he flat out told me that Senator Kerry never opined or stated that Building 7 was deliberately demolished. What he said was that “one wall had to be taken down” He never said that the whole building was intentionally brought down by a controlled demolition.

In circulating that verification response coming from the senator’s aid, I invited others to phone the senator’s office to hear exactly what I heard. In fact, should you wish to call the senator’s office, here is the number, (202) 224-2742. In listening to his aid he sounded angry. Who can blame him when the article misconstrued the words of the Senator according to his aid? I also told him of certain articles making their way around the Internet that the government was behind the shootings at Virginia Tech and if you could hear the reaction of Senator Kerry’s aid, he was equally angered over that one.

For some reason, I remember Mary MacElveen as being a 9/11 Truther, but her latest articles say otherwise.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

If nothing else...

it has encouraged an open conversation about this questionable building. Agreed?

Why let them control the tabloids and the media? They spin ALL of the stories ALL of the time.

That said however, I would like to state on record that WE, Austin 9/11 Truth Now never had a hand in writing that article, nor did we title it.

We want everyone to draw their own conclusions and we're sorry that we allowed the video to be released in the way that it was.

Please take the time to view the footage that we, personally put together. We did not bait him, we held him accountable for the his actions as a Senator.

The questions we posed can be fact checked by anyone. We voted for this man for President. As far as I'm concerned if he's going to lecture me for half an hour on holding our leaders accountable and having a sense of personal responsibility for my country and my world...then you can bet I'm asking the questions that our media refuses to.

I don't like the spin this video and this headline have gotten, but I do think that it deserves a second look.

Watch it without sound. The body language alone suggests that they are hiding something. That, for me, is enough.

I believe that they are good people at the root of everything. I could tell by looking into that man's eyes that he knows he has let his country down.

It's sad honestly.

We didn't know how crazy this was going to get. I reiterate though--this conversation is a healthy one.
People need to talk about 9/11--they always do.

September 11th is a staple in every speech given by our fearless leaders. As long as they keep bringing it up, we're going to keep bringing it up.

I think that we should continue to ask these types of questions. If we're talking about the environment anyway, why not mention the tons of depleted uranium killing our earth? Which coincidently, all goes back to 9/11.

I believe that one person can make a difference. We're just trying to make a dent.

Thank you all for being awake and willing to talk about things that others are not.

Michelle }j{
Austin 9/11 Truth Now

thanks Michelle

the people asking the questions could not have done a better job. You and your group have alot to be proud of.

I only wish your voice of reason was around 2 days ago when things got a little nutty here.

You guys were the subject of many conversations at last night's san diego truth meeting.

Keep up the great work!


Thank you Michelle.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Thank you for posting this.

Thank you for posting this. I was getting - votes in the other blog for posting the same thing basically.

This is why I despise these kinds of debates. They go around and around in circles.

See... A
No,not A, but B.
Not A or B, but C, because of D.
No, D, maybe, but certainly not C, and definitely A.
No, you're all crazy,it's E...

etc etc

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info


I think it would be wise to let senator kerry issue his own retractions regarding this. has been has been extra-sensational lately, especially with that whole Virginia Tech thing.

Too much "information based on predetermined conclusion" going on...

like the Commission Report.

like a bunch of folks at

Practice what you preach. You tell others to keep an open mind and explore the possibilities, but a lot of folks here promote speculations and theories like they are 100% fact and gospel, almost like a religion. It really is scary, and is becoming increasingly popular.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

If what you say is true --

If what you say is true -- which, frankly, is as much an interpretation of his answer as the other way round -- what things on a pile of rubble were in danger of being destroyed? 

Had he said that workers on the pile were in danger from the collapse of the wall, it would more credibly place it in the timeframe you imply.

Why isn't the simpler/obvious interpretation that he answered the question he was asked?  I'm actually not indicating a position here, just being Socratic.

wall or no wall, Teresa sure

wall or no wall, Teresa sure seems to know what the lady is talking about.......when she starts talking about Jones testing the dust, Teresa starts nodding in a yes motion. Then in classic liar fashion, Teresa pretends to be adding something up when the guy brought up Larry's billions.


all of these goons are going to say the same thing.....I wasn't aware, I didn't know..blah blah blah.. 2 years from now we'll have them all on tape saying they don't know and then what?

if one man can say "I don't know" over 70 times during a one day hearing and it's acceptable, then simply asking criminals if they've heard about the crime isn't going to get anywhere

Alternative interpretation

"Teresa sure seems to know what the lady is talking about.......when she starts talking about Jones testing the dust, Teresa starts nodding in a yes motion. Then in classic liar fashion, Teresa pretends to be adding something up when the guy brought up Larry's billions."

Could it be that she was doing her best to tacitly affirm or support the questioner?

he was caught off guard

and thinking back to the cover story, that is Larry's admission that the building was unstable and had to be pulled, he started to say it. but realized he couldn't quite say it so he said wall.

Typical Alex Jones to put words in people's mouths. He did this when he said Hugo Chavez had offered to form an international inquiry into 9/11. It was never true.

AJ is disinfo. Kerry is nervous. Larry is guilty.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


on second thought...

I think he really thought the question was about the portions of the bases of the towers that remained standing... These were referred to as the "south wall of the north tower" and the like where the portions still stood. He surely was thinking about these and how they had to be brought down as the rubble was being removed.

He either honestly doesn't know about 7 or was pretending not to.

BTW, I figured that by looking through the big picture book Aftermath by Joel Meyerowitz, which I bought to scour for clues. One picture is of the "Detectives of the NYPD Arson and Explosion Squad." standing in the rubble of the twin towers. I wonder why we never hear about them? What were their impressions? I'm too tired to copy all their names out but does anyone know anything about them and what they concluded?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



Kerry is just as uninformed as much of the American public.

Look at the guy.

He is honestly oblivious to the existence of WTC 7..... let alone the facts of it's collapse.

NOBODY was allowed to see that footage after that day. If you were not paying attention when it fell than you were not privey to that knowledge. Government or not. I did not know anything about WTC 7 untill a few years ago.

I was sitting at a bar trying to escape reality by the time WTC 7 fell and we the people never saw that building again unless we were force fed by somone in the know.
Together in Truth!

AJ disinfo?!

Are you saying that a man who has directed "Terrorstorm" is "disinfo"?


I am.

Vesa, do you think Terrorstorm is the whole story? Or is it possible that it is revealing enough to make people think it is? The way Terrorstorm covers the USS Liberty incident is very lame. It suggests that it was LBJs scheme and that he enlisted the help of the Israelis. Presumably to fight communism? The last red herring al Qaeda type threat? Yeah right.

Compare the coverage of it in TS to this film:

James Angleton, Israel's mole in the CIA throught he JFK assassination and the Liberty affair is key here. LBJ was a puppet just like W.

AJ is a cult figure, turns off mainstream people, he provides sloppy and irresponsible sensationalism--yes, my guess is he is disinfo and serves a specific purpose--to obscure where the truth ultimately lies by revealing enough of it to seem credible.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Then we disagree

No, I don't think Terrorstorm is the whole story, but I do think that its discussion especially of the London bombings is quite good.

I don't know what the ultimate truth of the case of USS Liberty is. What is certain is that the president allowed the attack to go on without protecting the ship, and that the Israeli knew what they were doing. The coverage of USS Liberty is also just one part of the film.

I think Alex Jones has greatly helped in spreading the truth, although I don't doubt he turns off many people as well.

Despite his shortcomings, I consider Alex Jones an American hero.

RT seems to think that

RT seems to think that everyone thinks like him and overanalyzes things like he does(and im glad he does). sadly most people just dont get that deep into these issues. AJ has exposed scores of people to imortant information they might not have seen otherwise. if he is "disinfo" then he is obviously doing a piss poor job of it. just look at how many people he has woken up over the years. AJ would be wise to tone his style down and not jump to conclusions as much as he does but disinfo? if so, they really should fire his ass already. hes doing much more harm than good(from the perps standpoint) if he is indeed disinfo.

I appreciate the crit

But I stand by my take, because I think its a fallacy that someone who reveals some truths is revealing ALL truths. because there are so many guilty parties throughout history who aren't necessarily all allies, what truths you reveal is very very important because although the narrative may change and expose SOEM of the criminal players, it won't necessarily change to expose them all. Criminals have a code of honr which normally keeps them from ratting each other out as long as they don't step on each others' turf..

I think 9/11 caused a breakdown in that balance and now the game is who can rat out the others most convincingly and get off scot free while having their enemies get their due? I propose that AJ might be an agent of one or more of these interested parties and is charged with weaving a compelling narrative (hence the showman style) that presents one set of conspirators as wholly innocent while exposing others.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


who said he was revealing

who said he was revealing all truths? i dont agree with the guys conclusions half of the time but i can appreciate him covering stories that need covering and spreading info that most people would otherwise not see. and the Watsons usually do a nice job of deconstructing major news events. do you really think Alex Jones has that much power? how many people do you really think he reaches anyway? he does ok but he isnt sitting on network tv or cable news every night. Alex Jones is just one of many that are trying to get to the truth about various events. what he says isnt gospel any more than what anyone else says. that doesnt mean i cant appreciate the effort even if i dont always agree with his conclusions(or what he chooses to focus on). and im interested, hypothetically speaking, who do you think Alex Jones works for? who is he protecting? be specific.

Chris, a lot of people subscribe to his entire worldview

If everyone was as circumspect as you and I are, Fox News would not actually have an audience. That said, Fox News sometimes provides useful information. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, frankly.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


likewise about that

likewise about that molehill. whats "a lot" of people to you? you think he has the power to change perceptions and shape stories like the MSM does? and i noticed you declined to tell me who you thought was pulling AJ's strings :-)

see here's the deal

Sorry, I meant moleshill... :)

Chris, as people often say to me--I agree with you most of the time, but here I'm afraid we see things very differently.

Alex Jones was one of the earliest entrants into the "society of truthing" as far as 9/11 goes--some even think he predicted the whole thing (Larouchies claim the same thing about THEIR hero actually.) As most people by now understand, coverups are not left to chance, so neither are the "movements" that grow up around them to "debunk"them. "Debunk" because these moles have no intention of removing ALL the bunk, just the bunk that they know has been put there for them to debunk. Like the bunk about bin Laden being responsible. They gain credibility by slectively and in a limited manner debunking all manner of things, all the while weaving a narrative that casts suspicion on... anyone but the guilty. Who do I think AJ is shilling for? Why the perps of 9/11 of course. Who are they? I think you know who I think they are for the most part--I don't claim to have all the answers, no matter how much I'm accused of that. In fact it is AJ who acts like he has all the answers.

To me, AJ has from the beginning played the role of a pied piper at every step of the truth movement's development, singing his NWO siren song backed by the tunes of Immortal Technique, in order to dupe genuine skeptics into acting like the PTB want them to act. Paranoid. Loud. Obnoxious. And wrong on many, though not all, counts. He must after all have some appeal based on credibility. He doesn't have to sway a lot of people--he is far from the only one tasked with this mission.

Now of course I could say more about what I really think, but my days of doing that on this site are rapidly coming to an end since I have received my "final warning". As some may have gathered, Jon Gold and I were asked by admin not to reply to each other. Today Jon violated that agreement and went on a rampage on my latest blog post. DHS joined in the fun and provoked me into suggesting he should hold his breath while hoping I wasn't referring to him when I said that evidence from CAMERA on anything Israel related is clearly propaganda. This was considered overly antagonistic. Commenting about it is probably also going to be seen that way and if so, you'll have to look on for my replies to posts on 911blogger.

Anyway, it's been fun, but greener pastures might well be in order!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


"Who do I think AJ is

"Who do I think AJ is shilling for? Why the perps of 9/11 of course. Who are they? I think you know who I think they are for the most part--I don't claim to have all the answers, no matter how much I'm accused of that. In fact it is AJ who acts like he has all the answers."

wow RT, i never pegged you as someone who would tip-toe around anything. just say it. forget the jackasses who will throw around accusations of racism. they dont matter anyway. just tell me who you think is pulling his strings. who is he protecting? and you do know that Alex Jones was around well before 9/11 right? so were the same people paying him then? or is he like an independent contractor of disinfo or something? and dont even tell me you think Immortal Technique is some kind of plant too.......

string pullers and building pullers

Chris, I know what you want me to say, or what you expect me to say anyway. And let me say right now that I don't believe that "Israel did 9/11 and Zionists control Alex Jones"

Let's get a few things straight--nothing about these crimes and coverup if necessarily straightforward.

To say "such and such [group] did 9/11" is really kind of sloppy. Take "The muslims did 9/11" or even "Muslims did 9/11" though they may seem it, neither statement is even a fair way to describe the official conspiracy theory. Because the official conspiracy says "al Qaeda did 9/11" and then proceeds to spin a narrative about who and what al Qaeda is, partly out of historical fact and partly out of whole cloth.

Sound familiar? AJ says "the NWO did 9/11". Part historical fact and part creative nerration tying together various individuals and groups into a master plan spanning centuries. Freemasons, Illuminati, the Vatican, oh my!

Perhaps the pejorative connotation of conspiracy theorist hasn't outlived its usefulness after all. It is what distinguishes the promoters of these airtight grand narratives like AQ did it or NWO did it from those who say it seems clear that "al Qaeda" did not do this as claimed by BushCo and the media, and we should therefore be most concerned with finding out who DID do it. More specifically who did each part. This would normally be the job of professional investigators, but it was never done by them. Larry Silverstein, and not 1000 Muslims, should have been immediately arrested and charged with arson and some degree of manslaughter or murder. If he was innocent--if he could show that he had no idea the property he bought and insured against terrorist attacks was rigged for demolition, then he would go home a free man. Of course it is highly unlikely that he could or would, and to avoid the death penalty for murder he could be compelled to reveal who his accomplices were. Note that I would not go as far as, say, Alan Dershowitz who says that in such cases, when killers might strike again, we should allow the torture of Mr. Silverstein to convince him to reveal all.

The question here is--who would be implicated if Silverstein were to reveal all? Who would be found to have been the muscle that carried in the explosives--who was contracted for the demolition of the WTC? Was it the Loizeaux family? The Mossad? Securacom? Who?

Now compare that approach to that used by Alex Jones. AJ starts with the conclusion, just like the OCT. The NWO did this, and we know who they are. SO alls we have to do is rant about them and point out all the evil things they've done in the past and somehow something good will come of that.

Now, it would seem something exploded at the Pentagon and killed people there and we have unreasonably been told by those charged with the defense of the Pentagon that it was a surprise attack with a commercial jet. Given that the perps were more than likely investigating themselves, we can't pin much hope on a forensic case (though I could be wrong on that score), but we can certainly pursue that aspect of "the 9/11 attacks" from other angles like how or why could a commercial jet be allowed to hit our military headquarters. This all raises the possibility that 9/11 as a whole was indeed compartmentalized so that not everyone necessarily knew what was going to happen. Some people may have foolishly thought that a bomb at the Pentagon could be blamed on terrorists OKC style and gone through with that plan only to find out that people with knowledge of their plans were going to piggyback their own crime on the other, like the demolition of the twin towers and building7.

The military exercises involving hijacked planes do seem to have been used to prevent air defenses from preventing the strikes against the towers, though it's possible those who arranged the plane strikes did not know that the towers were then to be demolished--they may not have known for example about the explosives in the buildings. Or they may have, but again that is what an investigation will reveal.

The question of who stands to be exposed most likely informs the issue of who is manipulating the coverup and that could be any number of people. Do I know which of the many criminals involved with those attacks AJ is sympathetic to? I could not say for sure, but he is clearly attempting (in my opinion of course) to distract us from much more productive avenues of investigation while simultaneously projecting an image to mainstream folks about what those who question 9/11 are like. An unflattering image. And one that divides people into those who have faith in AJs intentions and those who think he's full of crap.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


and those who dont put quite

and those who dont put quite as much stock in him as you seem to :-) and thats sort of my point. you think of this grand conspiracy with ALex Jones running cover for some powerful interests and all i see is a guy who is on public access and has a website and radio show that reaches a limited amount of people. whos really making a mountain out of a molehill here? i just dont think hes that powerful. hes an overzealous "super-patriot" who takes things too far that i dont agree with on many issues. but i respect what hes trying to do, and unlike you i just dont believe that is to make us look stupid and divert us from key issues on 9/11. again, i dont think he has that kind of power. and no, i didnt want you to say "Israel did 9/11 and Zionists control Alex Jones" unless you really believe that. i just wanted specifics because i was honestly curious about your opinion on this. i really dont like AJ's approach much either but i dont think that makes him "disinfo" and dont think he comes close to having that kind of power.

the question was leading

"wow RT, i never pegged you as someone who would tip-toe around anything. just say it. forget the jackasses who will throw around accusations of racism."

If it was really an open-ended question why did you assume I was worried that people would call me racist?

I think it's funny the way this always seems to play out with some people. One guy that stopped to insult me in Harvard Square said something like "he says the Jews didit" to another guy next to him (strangers to each other) That guy then said oh REALLY, licking his chops--where does he say that? (I had a ton of info boards up on all kinds of aspects.) The first guy then says well, he doesn't here, but that's his ilk.

Not only are those guys unwilling to consider the case for controlled demolition, they make accusations based on bogus information they get. Who does this hurt? It hurts Jews, because they are being lied to so much and emotionally blackmailed that they are going to end up disproportionately on the wrong side of the 9/11 issue as time goes by.

And ignorant people will not be easily convinced of what I am saying, that those Jews are victims of Zionist thought policing and are not in fact displaying "typical Jewish treachery" or some such neo-Nazi crap. Displaying symptoms of typical Zionist treachery is more like it, and anyone who thinks or claims that that is a racist statement is dangerously ignorant.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


RT, i had this really long

RT, i had this really long and thoughtful response for you but this fucking site erased it as usual. (love the site guys but COME ON already!). anyway, i assumed you were worried that people would call you racist because some on this site(who shall remain nameless) have done so before when you would even so much as mention Israel/MOSSAD/SIlverstein etc. and i assumed(but wasnt sure) that you thought that Alex Jones was working for one of these interests. for the record i agree with your views on Zionism and most of your views on 9/11 that ive seen you express here so i was absolutely not trying to lead you, i just wanted a specific answer.

You have to "copy" before hitting post these days

so that you can retrieve something when that happens. It's *very* frustrating. I wrote a thoughful, nuanced response to Bruce's question about the history of "hermaphrodite" here yesterday, only to see it launched into the Void. Given that it was basically a waste of my time to begin with, I couldn't bring myself to reconstruct it.

VERY frustrating indeed

haha, tell me about it. and i usually do copy but just didnt think to this time. i dont know though, the history of "hermaphrodite" sounds interesting. but what the hell was Bruce asking for? haha

and what were you "warned"

and what were you "warned" for? responding to Jon? jesus thats weak. like you said though, he is practically a founding member of this site. not saying its fair but.........

london bombings in terrorstorm

i dont think the 7/7 section is that great. for example, it implies the bombings took place just before general elections. when in fact, elections were 2 months before 7/7. a mistake that should have been easy to avoid , imo.
and yes, i also think AJ is way too sensational.

You mention one error

Were there others?

I think he covers the actual events quite well (the exercises going on at the same time as the actual blasts, the MI6 connections, etc).

Before or after

After the election would have had an even more profound effect considering that the British people were losing favor for the war and had likely elected people whom they thought would help them to get out of Iraq. A bombing would essentially take the power from those elected. Derailing their intended purpose since they had now been attacked on their home front.

Giving them new reason to want to continue the war against terror.

I was guessing that the Democrats would win this next election and try to take strides to do something to combat our criminal regime. Perhaps go after the Patriot Act. But I know that if they had these same criminals would have staged something and then blamed the soft policy of the Democrats so to gain favor for the next election. Or just institute Martial Law and try to maintain office by suspending elections.

Whether before or after....The effects are the same if not worse.

Thank you for posting this.

The video is great news for the movement. We have one of the most prominent government officials on record saying something ridiculous about 9/11. Since he said something that needs a great deal of clarification, he will be forced to comment further or retract. Those 2 questions will open the door for further questions, and more attention for our cause. I have all the respect in the world for the 2 people who asked those Q's. I would have been a stuttering buffoon in front of all those people, and they were both very composed.

I was, however, very disappoint in 911 Blogger's reaction. I thought the title of the thread here was misleading, if not dishonest. Okay. I thought it was dishonest. When I first read it, I jumped so high from my chair that my head hit the ceiling. I thought today was the day. I was obviously disappointed when "John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was a Controlled Demolition" turned out to be "John Kerry: I do know that err, that wall I remember was in danger, and they made a decision based on the danger… did it in a controlled fashion.”

Actually watching the video, I came away with 2 conclusions.

1. These questions made both of them nervous. But they could be nervous for many reasons.

2. What Kerry said means he is either ignorant of what happened on 9/11, or he is feigning ignorance.

Both of those options can be used by the movement to inspire and further debate. I don't think we need to exagerate here, or turn this into more than what it is.

I'd hate for someone on the fence, or new to the 9/11 debate, to see this video on youtube under this title, and after viewing it think we are liars and making things up.

Thanks to this video we have a unique opportunity to advance our views and the debate in general. Let's not squander it by mischarectering what occured, and letting speculation and body language interpretation replace actual quotes and facts. I was very disappointed with the title of the thread, as well as many of the comments in the thread. What upset me the most was the down-rating of every post that did not toe the line saying "John Kerry just admitted that WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.". (this did cool off a bit in the afternoon)

We are a truth movement. If we don't approach each and every subject with complete honesty, and maximum integrity, then what the hell is this about?

I mean no disrespect to anyone specifically.

F*ing PRICELESS. succinct, to the point, and SO true.

We have one of the most prominent government officials on record saying something ridiculous about 9/11

Yeah I didn't see why the original post merited so many comments--I figured there must be some flaming and I try to steer clear of that sort of thing. ;)


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Halberstam death faked??

On the subject of one of your comments on the open thread: Could you say a little more about Halberstam? I am not sure if you were joking and would like to understand your theory better if not.

perfectly put

Perfectly put Flip Mode.... we are a truth movement, based in fact.... we can't keep jumping to conclusions. it will just end up turning people off from the movement.

"I will not withdraw from this war even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -George W. Bush

agreed 100%


My Guess Is ...

Kerry was possibly referring to the west face of WTC 7 that seems damaged in some photo's, regarding a fear of it falling into the Verizon building next door.

He couldn't have been referring to the WTC slurry walls that were saved via great care.

so, the real elected 43.

so, the 43. Real Elected POTUS (REPOTUS)is answering a question that he wasn't asked ?
The question was specifically about WTC7 being demolished.
Those where the words in the question put to him .
Are you suggesting that the REPOTUS meant the Berlin Wall or maybe the Baghdad Wall ? And that the 43.REPOTUS thinks that there was never a formal investigation of the demolition of those walls ? Or is ADD so rampant in the US that people don't remember the question they are hearing the answer to ?
Sorry, but I think it's you whom is not very smart .

Alex Jones

I have to say that while i admire much of Alex's work, i'm not sure that his style does the truth movement an awful lot of good. He just comes across as the stereo typical left wing anarchist and may prevent a lot of fence sitters from joining the truth cause.

really? because hes comes

really? because hes comes off as pretty right wing to me. considering he is.

WTF are you talking about?

I know typical left wing anarchists and AJ, sir, is no typical left wing anarchist. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. AJ is a stereotypical NWO, Patriot Movement, homophobic right-winger, who attributed the failure of the cops at VA Tech to "estrogen poisoning."

uh no...

Actually I think he attributed the failure of the cops at VA to a standdown order that the Feds gave to them.
And what exactly is YOUR motivation cass? 99% of the time you speak logically. It's the 1% that bothers me.

As for AJ, I truthfully don't know what to think about him. My gut tells me to be weary of him...but I just don't know. What I do know is that if, in the end, he winds up being NWO dis-info, he'd be the best there ever was. And I have a feeling his punishment would be more severe than even that of the 9/11 perps.
It would also mean that he never snuck into Bohemian Grove...the whole thing was planned and paid for by ACTORS...notice how nothing TRULY incriminating was filmed in his "documentary". Don't forget, these brilliant world leaders ARE in fact insane.

Did you listen to his show the morning after?

He made a number of ridiculous and bigoted remarks on the cops' lack of testosterone and abnormal surplus of estrogen. To clarify: he did not SOLELY attribute their failure to this hormonal problem -- what concerns me is that these statements reveal that he is buying into all sorts of repressive, illogical mental constructs, most of which are based on appeals to fear and anxiety.