9.11 skeptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles
By Dark Politricks
This is an updated version to the original piece on my old site, plus it has the old comments added to the bottom of it so you can read the old debate I had with doubter. Plus we now have even more evidence from the deathbed confession of someone involved in WTC7's demise. A CIA demolition expert who worried the job looked too "real" and too much like a controlled demolition. He is right!
Despite directly contacting 9.11 skeptics and debunker websites and asking very very nicely I still haven't managed to find anyone willing or knowledgeable enough to debate the evidence regarding 9/11 and the official conspiracy theory. The very few people I do find often don't even know the official story well enough let alone all the various contentious topics surrounding the events of 9.11. Therefore I decided to conduct a little one on one imaginary discussion in the manner I would tackle a debate on the topic if required.
Why would our government do such a thing. Surely you're not expecting me to believe that George Bush master minded an attack on his own people just to start a war. The expense both in monetary terms, lives and the reputation of the USA has been severely damaged by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What possible reason exists to commit such a crime?
Yes the wars have been expensive and I am not alleging George Bush was involved at any level as he can barely master his own mind let alone a coordinated attack on the level of 9.11. However that is not to say other members in the US government and / or intelligence community did not know the attacks were about to happen and allowed them for various reasons. Without a full independent investigation we will not know the exact reasons and people involved.
Conspiracy theories are the playground of loons and mentalists with too much time on their hands. We know what happened on 9.11 and the only conspiracy was the one that involved 19 Al Qaeda hijackers who brought carnage to the USA.
You are right in that the events of 9.11 involved a conspiracy but there is a large body of evidence that suggests the 19 hijackers were not the only players involved. The official story is also a coincidence theory in that a number of amazing events all occurred on the same day.
Events which the probability of them all happening together would have been extraordinarily high but which we are expected to accept as happening by pure chance rather than from a concerted planned effort. For example:
- 4 planes were successfully hijacked at the same time by a few men on each plane armed only with rudimentary weapons.
- Not one of these successful hijacked planes was met with a challenge from the US air force which was the standard practice.
- Not one camera in the most monitored and controlled part of airspace in the US managed to catch the incoming flight 77 as it hit the Pentagon.
- The biggest coincidence is that 3 tall steel framed skyscrapers, all owned by the same person, collapsed into their own footprint after short fires. Never before had a building like this collapse from fire alone and although two buildings were hit by planes the building structures were designed to withstand such impacts and the other building wasn't hit by a plane at all. To have one building collapse looking exactly like a controlled demolition is unlucky, to have two is careless but three is downright freaky. What are the chances that a mile and a half of combined buildings would all collapse at almost free-fall speed in the manner expected from controlled collapses but not be caused by explosives at all.
Just because the attacks were sophisticated it doesn't not mean that either Al Qaeda didn't or couldn't carry them out. Suggesting that our government was complicit some-way in these attacks is not only unpatriotic but unproven plus we know Al Qaeda did it as Bin Laden admitted it.
A few points here. Although the CIA and other war mongers have done a good PR job Al Qaeda is not and never has been a Spectre or Smersh like organisation intent on world domination with agents hiding under every bush. Bin Laden was an ex CIA asset who was utilised during the Afghanistan war against the Soviets and according to the most gagged woman in history, Sibel Edmonds, the USA maintained close links with him up until 9.11. As Robin Cook, the ex UK minister wrote in the Guardian, Al Qaeda actually means "the database" and refers to a file of CIA recruited and trained fighters who helped repel the Red army.
As for admitting involvement in the attacks we only have a dodgy video tape and a very unconvincing translation that takes the conversation out of context for these claims. We know that subsequent bin-Laden tapes have been faked and many people believe bin-Laden died in late 2001. Whether you believe he is dead or not we do have one interview that was conducted with him just after the attacks in which he categorically denies any involvement.
As for proving whether the US government, Israel or any other state actors played a part in the attacks we shouldn't rule that out just because a neat trail of evidence was laid to the door of Bin Laden's cave in Tora Bora.
We all know that every country engages in black ops and covert operations and a cursory knowledge of history proves that politicians, the military, intelligence agencies and other influential people are perfectly capable and willing to not only exploit events on the magnitude of 9.11 for their own benefit but actually help cause attacks of this nature either directly or indirectly for political gain.
For a start we should ask ourselves the following:
1. Did certain people in the US establishment want to increase American influence and control in the Middle East and Central Asia?
Yes. It is well known that a large number of neo-conservatives wanted to assert US dominance over the Middle East and Afghanistan for a number of reasons including:
- Control of the main source of Oil and other natural resources.
- A buffer to emerging powers of China and a re-assertive Russia.
- To aid their ally Israel in helping combat their enemies in that region.
2. Were those people in government?
Yes the co-authors and supporters of the now controversial report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century were none other than Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld.
3. Were there existing plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before the attacks of 9.11 took place?
Yes not only were there plans to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban that were talked about in July 2001 to be implemented before Christmas of 2001, but no sooner had George Bush taken residency in the White House plans were set in motion to topple Saddam Hussein and manage the rich oil fields that would fall under their control after any successful invasion.
So not only did certain powerful people talk and write about their desire to expand US power into the Middle East and Central Asia they also realised that these plans would be hard to achieve unless a major attack on the country took place.
The fact that such an attack did take place and the exact desired plans were enacted is either a brilliant piece of luck on these war mongers behalf or lady luck was given a helping hand to bring that fateful event about.
Okay so some people may have wanted to expand US power abroad but that doesn't mean they staged 9.11. It's one thing to use a horrific event as an excuse to carry out plans that wouldn't otherwise have been enacted but quite another to cause the act to happen in the first place. Conspiracy theorists always think the worst of people, our government would never be involved in carrying out such a crime against the people.
You obviously are not aware of recent history which unfortunately is littered with cases of supposedly democratic nations engaging in crimes against it's own people for political expediency. The USA went to war in Vietnam over an event which has now been admitted never happened, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and de-classified documents show that the US military was not afraid of discussing the use of false flag attacks. It is also widely believed that Winston Churchill allowed the US passenger ship the Lusitania to be attacked and sunk by German U-Boats to bring the USA into World War 1. Also if you want an example of a conspiracy between nations to start a war you need only look at the Suez crisis in which the UK, France and Israel colluded together to wage war against Egypt so that they could wrestle control of the Suez canal back from Nasser.
More recent examples are not hard to find either and history is littered with many examples of nations engaging in under hand state crimes against it's own people including:
- Operation Gladio in which the Italian governments agents staged bombings, assassinations and assaults on it's citizens to be blamed on the far left.
- The Russian FSB apartment bombings in which nearly 300 people were killed in attacks blamed on Chechen separatists. Russian agents were filmed planting explosives in an apartment block but when questioned on the matter they claimed it was just a test to see how aware the citizens were.
- The Lavon affair in which Israeli agents staged a number of false flag attacks in Egypt by blowing up US and British targets including a library and a theatre in the hope of the attacks being blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood.
One of the main perfecters of the false flag attack which it has used many times to get American armed forces to do it's bidding is the Israeli Mossad. I have already mentioned the Lavon affair in which Americans were targeted by Israeli agents in an attempt to pin the blame on Muslims but other examples include:
Operation Trojan, in which a Mossad team planted a fake relay transmitter in Libyan territory and then broadcast fake messages containing coded orders to carry out terrorist attacks knowing that they would be picked up by US interceptors. The Americans fell for this plan and believed fake Intel that pinned a German nightclub bombing which had killed a US solider on Libya. They re-acted by bombing the country and killed Gaddafi's adopted daughter.
The USS Liberty attack in which dozens of US servicemen were murdered in a daylight attack during the 1967 war. Although Israel and it's supporters claim this was an accident the survivors believe it was a deliberate attempt to bring the US into the war on Israels side by pinning the blame on Egypt. The evidence supports their claims including the testimony of an ex Israeli pilot who refused to attack the ship knowing it was American and workers from intercept stations that twice overheard Israeli pilots reporting that the ship was not Egyptian as was claimed but American.
Okay so intelligence agencies can get out of hand but surely our current crop of government officials are moral upstanding God believing civilized humans who would never consider such tactics.
You cannot be serious?
Politicians are probably the least moral of all human kind and many politicians either enter politics for selfish notions such as power, money, ego or become corrupted along the way.
This is not to say all politicians are corruptible just that it seems that way due to the many sex, drink and drugs, expenses and other scandals that plague their profession. However to give you specific examples of government officials discussing the use of false flag attacks:
Tony Blair and George Bush discussed flying a UN marked plane over Iraq in the hope it would get shot down and then be blamed on Saddam giving them an excuse to invade. This story has actually re-surfaced in a recent memoir by General Hugh Shelton in which he states that at a meeting:
"A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to retaliate and go to war."Dick Cheney discussed staging a false flag attack in the Straight of Hormuz by painting US boats so they looked like Republican Guard boats and then staging a shoot up with US ships which could be used as a pretext to starting a war with Iran.
We should also remember that we are dealing with the sorts of people who ran unofficial assassination squads and who sanctioned the use of torture on detainees at bases from Abu Girab to Gitmo. These are also people that knew that most of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent.
Therefore we are dealing with people who have little moral fibre but who seem to believe that strong unethical action is needed to be taken sometimes to protect their country. However misguided these people are it is not inconceivable that someone honestly believed that by allowing the attacks of 9.11 to take place they were helping the USA by giving it a chance to "Sweep it all up. Things related and not" as Donald Rumsfeld famously said in the aftermath of the attacks.
Okay so false flag attacks do happen and western countries are not above carrying out dubious acts in the hope of blaming their enemies. However this does not mean that 9.11 was such an event. For one thing a conspiracy of this size and scale would involve far too many people for it to be kept quiet.
Not necessarily. There are many theories surrounding the events of 9.11 and only with a full independent investigation can we possibly ever know the truth however two of the most likely scenarios in my opinion are that either:
- The act was a terrorist operation that was allowed to happen due to someone at a high level within the US intelligence community either deliberately "ignoring" the multiple warnings and signs that an attack was going to happen.
- Or the event started off as a terrorist attack but was discovered by intelligence officers and then co-opted and managed by a team of intelligence officers to ensure that it went off successfully.
If the attack was allowed to happen on purpose at the minimum the conspiracy need only involve a few key decision makers either losing or not actioning reports that were coming in from foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia, France, Morocco and their own agents that the attacks were coming. By deliberately ignoring such intelligence it makes it easier to give the excuse that the attacks occurred due to negligence rather than any deliberate act to allow them to happen.
The co-opted terrorist attack or planned false flag would also only require a small dedicated team of intelligence officers and their handlers to be in the know.
We should also note that members of intelligence agencies are sworn to keep official secrets acts and it is very unlikely that any serving member of a group involved in the attacks would blow the whistle especially if they believed they were doing it for the greater good. Like the JFK assassination we may have to wait until one of the conspirators is on their death beds before a confession is forth coming.
Hold up, did you just say someone confessed to the assassination of John F Kennedy on their death bed? Why didn't I hear about this on the news?
Yes a confession by an ex CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, who was involved in the Bay of Pigs and the Watergate scandal gave a confession on his death bed regarding his role in the assassination of JFK.
The reason you didn't hear about it or the CIA agent who confessed to demolishing WTC7 on the news is just one example of how the main stream media controls the flow of information regarding certain events. The same can be said for the 9.11 attacks in that:
- No sooner had the towers collapsed than bin-Laden was blamed for the attacks and the MSM were parroting the same line without any evidence or counter points viewed.
- The collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by any plane and fell at near free-fall speed looking exactly like a controlled demolition was under reported and treated like a non event. Even today many people who still believe the official story have no idea that a third skyscraper collapsed in New York that day.
- Reports on the day that included interviews with first responders and survivors about secondary explosions, talk of such explosions by news reporters themselves along with footage containing the sounds of said explosions were never re-broadcasted once the "official" story was released.
- Any alternative view point regarding the events on the day are met with derision and cries of conspiracy theory or anti patriotic slurs. Hit pieces full of straw man arguments and selective evidence are constantly aired and the only place that much of the legitimate and very real evidence can be found is in the alternative media.
You would think so wouldn't you however one of the strange provable facts regarding 9.11 is that the very people who failed in their responsibility to keep the country safe from terrorist attacks were not punished but rather rewarded through promotions.
In fact not one single person within those agencies that were supposed to be protecting the USA from attack was punished or sacked for failing to do their jobs properly. The following people who should have been reprimanded or sacked for failing to keep the country safe were all promoted:
- Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11
- Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11
- Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director
- Brigadier General Montague Winfield
- Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11
- Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney's task force on problems of national preparedness
- Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit
- Pasquale D'Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York
Either the USA rewards abject failure and incompetence and treats the biggest intelligence failure that ever occurred as a successful event rather than the murderous disaster it actually was, or these people were paid off and rewarded for keeping their mouths shut or doing exactly what they were ordered to do on 9.11 e.g nothing.
Your making this out to be some kind of huge conspiracy but we know exactly what happened. An Al Qaeda terrorist cell hijacked multiple planes and flew them into multiple buildings. The 9.11 commission examined all the evidence and proved what happened.
Did it though?
6 out of the 10 commissioners have made comments regarding the failure of the commission to get to the truth of the events of that day due to a concerted cover up action by the White House.
"One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up". - Max Cleland who resigned from the 9.11 commission.
Not only did the White House delay creating the commission and then put limits on the scope of the investigation they also blocked the commission from reviewing documents and interviewing White House staff.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer has recently gone on record to discuss how the commission refused to hear his evidence regarding the Able Danger program which was a data mining operation set up to identify links between terrorist suspects. By early 2000 this program had identified a Brooklyn terror cell that included Mohammed Atta as well as three other 9.11 hijackers.
The 9.11 commission was also used as the basis by the US government to build up it's case for war against Iraq. We all know the lies used to get us into that war and during the commission a prominent neo-con scholar called Laurie Mylroie repeated unfounded claims that Saddam Hussein had been behind every major terrorist attack against the United States since the early 90's including the first World Trade Center attack, the Oklahoma City bombing, the African embassy bombings and 9.11.
Also the 9.11 commission wasn't fully independent, had a narrow scope of reference and ignored key evidence that conflicted with the official story. In fact no proper criminal investigation was held into the events of 9.11 and it has been left to independent investigators, insurance companies and activists to truly investigate the events of that day.
So what actual evidence is there that conflicts with the official events of the day. From the documentaries I have seen on TV the collapse of the World Trade Center has been explained and NIST has finally released it's report into the collapse of WTC-7 which it proved was caused by fire.
The official story says that the collapse of all buildings on 9.11 was caused by the hijacked planes and resulting fires alone. If it can be proved that one of the buildings was in fact brought down by controlled demolition then this leaves the official story on rocky ground as it means all of the following:
- We have been lied to by our government and the owner of the building Larry Silverstein.
- The NIST report was in fact not an honest investigation but a cover up.
- Probability would suggest that we have been lied to about the cause of the collapse of the other buildings as well.
- The hijackers were not acting alone but were instead part of a grander conspiracy which involved agents who were able to access the WTC and plant explosives OR the explosives were planted quickly on 9.11. Either way if the building was brought down in a controlled fashion it has been covered up and investigation into the collapse has been managed to fit the official story.
Okay I can agree with those conclusions but you still need to actually prove that one of the buildings collapsed in this manner and prove the official story wrong.
Yes I do. Lets start with an overview which has been created by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. These are professionals who have risked their professional reputations by investigating the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 and going on the record to state that they believe the buildings were not brought down by the impact of planes alone.
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
- Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
- Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
- Extremely rapid onset of destruction
- Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
- Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
- Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
- Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
- 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
- Isolated explosive ejections 20 - 40 stories below demolition front
- Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
- Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
- Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
- Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
- No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
- Slow onset with large visible deformations
- Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
- Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
- High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed"
- Rapid onset of "collapse"
- Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a second before the building's destruction
- Symmetrical "structural failure" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at free-fall acceleration
- Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
- Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
- Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
- Fore-knowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
- FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
- Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
- Chemical signature of thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
- Slow onset with large visible deformations
- Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
- Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
- High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".
However just to keep things simple lets concede that the Twin Towers did collapse due to the fires caused by the plane crashes. This still leaves the "smoking gun" of 9.11 which is the collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by a plane and only suffered limited fires before it collapsed at near freefall speed into its own footprint in the afternoon of 9.11.
The following points explain just why the collapse of WTC-7 is so problematic for the official story of collapse by fire alone.
Evidence exists that the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein, wanted to bring the building down. Not only did he make the famous "pull it" comment in a documentary about the events of the day but a recent FOX hit piece on Jesse Ventura by ex Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reveals that during the day he was on the phone to his insurance company attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
"I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard....Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building - since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."Numerous witnesses have gone on the record to say they were told beforehand that WTC-7 was going to be brought down by a controlled demolition. These witnesses include:
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.
Emergency Medical Technician Indira Singh who was told by the fire department that Building 7 was going to be brought down deliberately due to collateral damage.
Another EMT named Mike wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
"There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us," he stated.Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer who said that he heard demolition charges go off inside the building as it collapsed.
The non peer reviewed NIST report into the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is based on a computer model that they won't release the source code for. This computer model has been thoroughly rubbished by many people for not bearing any resemblance to the actual collapse of the building as it occurred and it relies on some dodgy programming that seems to have loaded the parameters to create the desired outcome.
They did this by excluding important parts of the building that they themselves admitted were present in an interim report as well as assuming no thermal conductivity of steel in their model which meant that only one part of steel re-enforced concrete was heated causing the thermal expansion that supposedly caused the collapse. This video explains why the computer model was flawed. The first video was removed so I had to get a recent backup.
However the major flaw in the NIST report into the collapse is that they had to admit that their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics due to a 2.25 second period during the collapse in which the building collapses at freefall speed for 100 ft. The only way this would be possible would be if all the floors beneath the top part of the building had been completed removed so that the roof had nothing to fall through apart from air!
If WTC 7 is represented by three parts A, B and C, where part A is floors 0-6, part B is floors 6-14 (24 meters tall) and part C is floors 14-47 (see picture left), free fall of part C is only possible if, e.g. part B (or more!) is suddenly and totally removed! Then part C free falls on part A.
Free fall dropping upper part C of WTC 7 (above floor 14) does not apply any loads at all on the structure below floor 14 during this time!
NIST has been asked to explain what David Ray Griffin calls a miracle but cannot do so. Their official position regarding the cause of the collapse is totally inconsistent with physical evidence and the laws of physics which is an obvious problem.
The last point to remember is that a number of scientists have analysed the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center and found evidence of high explosive materials. The following is taken from a lecture given by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently.
The energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark) was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics.
It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11.
Many people who follow the official line have tried to combat these studies by saying that the particles found within the dust were only by-products from the various office furnishings and other building materials.
They have also claimed in a number of documentaries that the amount of Thermite / Thermate explosive required to bring down a building would be too large and would have required a large scale operation to install however numerous people have carried out their own experiments to show that this is not the case.
The following video is a good example of someone using physical science to back up the theory behind controlled demolition at the WTC.
As you can see not only did the collapse of WTC-7 look like and behave like a controlled demolition there is evidence to support this from witnesses, reporters, physical experiments and scientific analysis as well as the fact that the NIST version of events is total hogwash that cannot even follow the basic laws of physics.
Logic, reason and good science dictate that there is more than enough evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC-7 to warrant a proper investigation.
Remember if this building was brought down deliberately and not caused by secondary fires caused by falling debris from the Twin Towers then it means that we have been lied to on a massive scale.
Not only has there been a huge cover up involving sections of the media and major government agencies but it also means that there is a lot more to the events of that day than we have been led to believe.
WTC-7 is the Ace of Spades sitting at the bottom of a house of cards that the official story is built upon. Once you take the blinkers off and look at the evidence surrounding WTC-7 objectively it becomes quite clear that the evidence points towards a controlled demolition.
We also now have a deathbed confession from a CIA agent who took part in the demolition process and he said that the destruction of the building looked "Too much like a controlled demolition" and thought people would start questioning it. You can read my article on it here.
If we can prove that this one part of the story is based on a massive lie and cover-up then it takes a huge chunk out of the official story and opens up the whole sad event to proper scrutiny.
Surely you must agree?
By Dark Politricks
© 2018 Dark Politricks
Comments Part 1 > https://darkpolitricks.blogspot.com/2018/12/comments-and-debate-over-911-skeptics.html
Comments Part 2 > https://darkpolitricks.blogspot.com/2018/12/part-2-comments-and-debate-over-911.html
Comments Part 1 > https://darkpolitricks.blogspot.com/2018/12/comments-and-debate-over-911-skeptics.html
Comments Part 2 > https://darkpolitricks.blogspot.com/2018/12/part-2-comments-and-debate-over-911.html
