Luke Rudkowski VS Charlie Veitch on 9/11 on ADAM vrs the Man

Luke Rudkowski VS Charlie Veitch on 9/11

sunglasses can't hide his lying eyes.

BBC=Propaganda tool of the perpetrators.

I'd like to see Adam Kokesh full on board

he is a ferocious speaker.

a sample

Slick Image...

I'm rather annoyed by the slick image of CV and his insincerity. It would have been good to have Graeme Macqueen there to provide the full picture regarding the building 7 collapse.

It seems apparent that CV

It seems apparent that CV never knew much about 9/11 in the first place.

Luke: show clips of Tony Szamboti (Chandler, or others) breaking down WTC 7 collapse next time; not Larry Silverstein.

I imagine BBC is going to make a special point to highlight Charlie's 'turn'. I want to ignore him, but damn I see a cloud coming...

Charlie Veitch - just lost my trust

Yes, I've just taken a whole new look at Charlie Veitch. And it wasn't just the sunglasses and the cute toy plane that jarred.

He mentions being persuaded by the BBC - a state broadcaster that has been a propagandist for the US-UK wars and that produced the definitive "Conspiracy Files:911" - the hit-piece series that revealed the quality of BBC's professed "impartiality' and 'investigative journalism' to the world.
Then he mentions sitting in a house with a CIA guy, being put right on the story? Please...... Don't do it to yourself Charie Veitch, let alone try and pull it off for some imagined audience.

Take off the glasses, Charlie Veitch - let's see the eyes of the guy behind ""The Love Police""" .

CV did his own thermite "experiment"

which demonstrated that nano-thermite cannot cut through steel. See

which is a textbook example of empty debunker arguments!

Luke sure picked a weak link

To bad Luke's big response as hard evidence is a reference to the "pull it" vid. This statement is far to vague to conclude anything from. It has been debunked. Go searching for "pull it" and you find so many contexts where the term is used, it is to hard to conclude it was the context Luke is saying. It's just not rock solid evidence. It's interesting, but to vague to convince a court, or say, a skeptic. Saying Silverstein 'admitted' it is false. Saying the 9/11 commission report doesn't mention WTC7 is also false. That is why when anyone still harps on this subject they can be easily ripped up. Even the reporter who was obviously open-minded towards justice seeker's views, was given this weak theory, based on one quote.

I consider this a fail, not just in the basic errors I mentioned above, but also to make Charlie Veitch look like a schill. I commend Luke for his reserved approach. Far more mature than his confrontations I have seen where he just freaks out and starts yelling names (new world order scum!, your a member of the CFR!). Still though if he brings it all back to B7, controlled demolition, and pull it, we are easily framed (again)(and again, and again, and again) as a lone question movement. 'All we talk about is explosions and thats the only questions '9/11 justice movement people' ask, and that has been debunked by sources I trust more than the 'truthers' etc.. .' Reframed, limited, signed, sealed and debunked (even though there is validity to the WTC7 questions). A very weak choice of a particular fact to drop. Charlie Veich was able to appear cool and smug, even though he was full of it. If you plan on claiming YOU KNOW people in the gov't did it, well you better have some better evidence to back it up. There are people far to intelligent open to 9/11 truth who will see right through any holes in your evidence.

Bonus points for wearing a Press for Truth t-shirt. It would have been FAR more valuable to show a few clips (or even mention it's a film) from Press for Truth than a Silverstein video.

While I agree that other

While I agree that other points would have been more potent, the "pull it" argument is hardly debunked. It was a fairly revealing slip on Silverstein's part -- nothing I would bother trying to base any serious argument on, but in the context that it occurred, it is very revealing. And no, there are not that many related contexts where that phrase would credibly be used.

That said, I would add that I had never heard of Charlie Veitch before this recent controversy. ;) I got the impression that was Veitch's first visit to NY. It was obviously a great time for him. I certainly remember being impressed on my first trip. I think if I were flown to NY, wined and dined and smooth-talked by some insiders into why the buildings fell the way they did, I might be tempted to see things the way they do, too. Until I got home, anyway. ;)

He's either a very impressionable young fellow, or was uninformed or insincere from the start.

If the BBC uses this slick Charlie Veitch

for their 10 year 9/11 "history look", this reveals what propaganda tools they are.

Because there are certainly better persons to report on, instead they seem to chose the "weakest point of the chain".