Are these Harvard students? Oh my gosh where have they been? It's called research. Anybody who has sincerely done any serious research into 9/11 knows that the government's version of events just isn't so.
See: Gordan Ross Eric Lawyer (Firefighters for 9/11 Truth) AE911 Truth Press Conference The Secret History of the American Empire by John Perkins The New American Century (movie) War Made Easy (movie)
Yeah planes from the 1970s you idiot. The towers design were flawed anyways. You have not woken up to any truth, you are just an idiot like all 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
and maybe she is right...they did take one each of the smaller ones. THATS not what brought them down...it was a combonations of things like, the fire retardent insulation was blasted off from the impact, the fires weakening the beams. 1/4 of the floor destroyed.and having to suport the upper floors. and the softend beams pulling in on the outer walls is what brought it down
i am not affraid, i just think for myself and dont' have others filling my head with puke like you obviously are with 911 truthers. they are the ones in denenial, always wanting to blaim the goverment. and obviously they couldnt' even take 1 plane hit that was smaller then a 747. it is amazing how little your brain works
They were made to take hits from smaller planes. and they did take hits from two larger ones, just the bigger ones blew off the fire retardent foam from the beams nad flooring. which allowed the beams to become soft, NOT melted like certain people who like to twist that. which in turn made them sag and not able to suport the weight of the building. if you don't believe that, thats your problem and YOU are the one living in a dream like state and not have truly woken up.
sounds like your just watching Videos from people who WANT to believe that the goverment is the ones who brought those buildings down. I mean COME ON did you NOT see the buildings get hit by friggen airplanes? if you did, go to an eye Dr.
Wonder if they had a family member in the towers? Nah there from Boston, so who gives a shit. Those planes could have turned around and slamed in to Logan and I'm sure their opinions would be much different. Nice hair.
I dont believe the 911 gov. story because historically it happens. I don't rely on the "video evidance" because there is too many coincidances and guilty demenor surrounding 911. Ask yourself how fucked up people can be and there is your answer.
sheepblitzer, I just reviewed my collection of Prof. Griffin's books and found endorsements from Howard Zinn in The New Pearl Harbor and Omissions and Distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report in addition to Debunking 9/11 Debunking. So do you stand by your claim that his blurbs are being taken out of context? If so, why hasn't he complained about such chicanery? Can you now admit that you have been confused? That DRG is NOT a charlatan as so many of us truthers consider Alex Jones to be?
The europeans by a large majority believe 911 was an inside job. I came to the conclusion it had to be an inside job and tend to believe Webster Tarpley's analysis.
Unfortunately their leaders are just as much beholden to the official fairy tale, given the recent ignoring of the presentation given at the European parliament. And no offense but personally I think Webster Tarpley is a "false flag truther"...
There is no offense taken. Tarpley is good because he's the only one that has been able to say who is ultimately behind all this without the histrionics of Alex Jones. It is definitely the financial oligarchy that rules most of the world. It is clear we do not live in a democracy but an oligarchy of some fashion.
"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing mysteries surrounding the 9/11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."
In August 2007, National Medal of Science winner Dr. Lynn Margulis praised The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, saying they provide "overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable", while calling for a new investigation.
"Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation--not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture--we will never know what happened on 9/11. David Griffin will never let this go until we get the truth."
So to recap, we have two votes for Howard Zinn (gretavo and crackahcrackah) and one vote for Michael Savage (sheepblitzer). Anyone else have an opinion to voice?
you get what you ask for sheep. i'm giving you a taste of your own medicine. you sink to accusing the publishers of quoting Zinn out of context for their purposes. since you're so dismissive of people who question 9/11, calling them nuts, I put you down for a vote for Michael Savage and your precious Islamofascist myth. You've made the bed of ignorance, now lie in it and take it from Savage like a man!
so i guess noam chomsky also votes for savage too then, so does a majority of non-nutcase americans, were all in bed with savage. cuz he must have been the one who made up the official story right? just like how book covers can talk and be the original source of Zinn-quotes....
now we're getting somewhere. from the video it is CLEAR that Savage was pimping the official BS from day one, literally. figuring out from there how many other people went along with it isn't so hard is it? the more interesting question is why people like you and chomsky don't get with me, zinn and griffin and millions of others to once and for all ask the hard questions that will reveal the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. its not a puzzle anymore, just takes some courage.
Zinn is obviously endorsing that the QUESTIONS be asked. but going around the web attaching this quote to the "9/11 truth movement" and their commonly presumed ANSWER ("9/11 was an inside job") may be taking it out of context. these are basic question of sources, correct citation, and honesty. why this is so hard for you to comprehend i do not know. that and constantly marking down my comments because im questioning you says alot. then again i would expect nothing else from a conspiracy nut
wow, ok, lets try this again. no shit its ON the back of the book. but thats not where it originated from. Zinn must have said it somewhere at sometime... and where or whenever that was he must have also been saying something else. that is called the context. i was just asking that you explain this context. I wasnt saying Griffin made it up.
saying that they "deserve to be investigated" doesnt mean he's endorsing them. maybe he wants them investigated so they can be proven wrong. you should provide more context into Zinn's quote before making him out to be a conspiracy nut.
Sorry blitzer, but if you say that *questions* deserve to be investigated you are endoring those questions. And how can a question itself, as opposed to an answer, be wrong? Finally, your knee-jerk fall back to the hackneyed "conspiracy nut" charge reveals that you yourself have rejected a priori the questions that Zinn says deserve to be investigated. In other words, you are dismissing something without even understanding it, which is what this video is all about. Thanks for your feedback.
theres nothing wrong with asking questions. and i agree with Zinn they should be investigated... but the problem with the "truth movement" is they are already assuming the answers (a.k.a. "because the government did it") before said investigation.
Oh and since I didn't explicitly make it clear, the Zinn quote is from the back cover of Griffin's book, those blurbs are considered to be endorsements.
and no the quote did not come from the back of Griffin's book. Zinn must have said it at some point before then.... thats what i meant by context. slapping a quote on the back cover to sell copies may have taken it OUT of context, just like you may be doing...
The quote IS on the back of the book, and presumably that counts as an endorsement, or else Zinn would have asked that it not be put there, or sued, or whatever. You seem to believe more in conspiracies than we do, if you think that the author and publisher are trying to falsify or misleadingly imply endorsement by Howard Zinn. If you're right, why hasn't Zinn publicly clarified that he was not actually endorsing the book claiming his support?
ah, so the back covers of books don't actually issue forth speech themselves--great insight! your accusation then is that the author and publisher are deceptive manipulators. I've written to the publisher to ask about Zinn's quote and I will also take it up with Prof. Zinn if necessary. Thanks for the challenge, sheep!
actually this is getting nowhere and apparently i have you confused. so just to clear things up, change the very first sentence of my original post to: "saying that the questions 'deserve to be investigated' doesnt mean he's endorsing your presumed answers." then forget the rest of this convo happened. peace out nut
in other words, you have nothing but nitpicking and namecalling to run with here. and complaining that you get voted down when calling people nuts with nothing to back up the charge you're just demonstrating more of your frustration at being wrong.
actually look at the face of the girl on the left, look for her eyebrows going up as she looks back at fauxhawk girl - I read it as, well, what DO you say to that? Looks like a closet truther to me--we have lots of those on campus. :)
Are these Harvard students? Oh my gosh where have they been? It's called research. Anybody who has sincerely done any serious research into 9/11 knows that the government's version of events just isn't so.
See: Gordan Ross Eric Lawyer (Firefighters for 9/11 Truth) AE911 Truth Press Conference The Secret History of the American Empire by John Perkins The New American Century (movie) War Made Easy (movie)
ramjet73 1 year ago
Yeah planes from the 1970s you idiot. The towers design were flawed anyways. You have not woken up to any truth, you are just an idiot like all 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
UserUK201 2 years ago
The only thing you dope heads can do is repeat what you read on the internet or see on DVD's.
You need to get a real life, but it's probably the Government that is holding you back, so keep on whining.
TheFirstJRichSparks 2 years ago
you guys are all a bunch of paranoid faggots.you guys are all a bunch of paranoid faggots.
gretavo 2 years ago
and maybe she is right...they did take one each of the smaller ones. THATS not what brought them down...it was a combonations of things like, the fire retardent insulation was blasted off from the impact, the fires weakening the beams. 1/4 of the floor destroyed.and having to suport the upper floors. and the softend beams pulling in on the outer walls is what brought it down
thepissedoffpotato 2 years ago
i am not affraid, i just think for myself and dont' have others filling my head with puke like you obviously are with 911 truthers. they are the ones in denenial, always wanting to blaim the goverment. and obviously they couldnt' even take 1 plane hit that was smaller then a 747. it is amazing how little your brain works
thepissedoffpotato 2 years ago
Two words: Smoking gun.
No one would be convicted in a court of law with the kinds of evidence you claim to have.
Also, putting TRUTH in Caps lock doesn't make it truth. Creationists, Scientologists, and all kind of nut jobs do the same exact thing.
9/11 truthers are no different.
FreePrometheus 2 years ago
They were made to take hits from smaller planes. and they did take hits from two larger ones, just the bigger ones blew off the fire retardent foam from the beams nad flooring. which allowed the beams to become soft, NOT melted like certain people who like to twist that. which in turn made them sag and not able to suport the weight of the building. if you don't believe that, thats your problem and YOU are the one living in a dream like state and not have truly woken up.
thepissedoffpotato 2 years ago
sounds like your just watching Videos from people who WANT to believe that the goverment is the ones who brought those buildings down. I mean COME ON did you NOT see the buildings get hit by friggen airplanes? if you did, go to an eye Dr.
thepissedoffpotato 2 years ago
Air pressure guy, the "Explosions" you see is just so much air pressure coming out blowing windows out and thats what You see.
thepissedoffpotato 2 years ago
Wonder if they had a family member in the towers? Nah there from Boston, so who gives a shit. Those planes could have turned around and slamed in to Logan and I'm sure their opinions would be much different. Nice hair.
LazerBeef 2 years ago
I dont believe the 911 gov. story because historically it happens. I don't rely on the "video evidance" because there is too many coincidances and guilty demenor surrounding 911. Ask yourself how fucked up people can be and there is your answer.
lawharrison 2 years ago
runaway global warming? WTF??? Global warming is the biggest government hoax ever! A bunch of BS!
breadym 2 years ago
yes it is my man
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Duuh.......I'm just holding the sign !!
dharman19662u 2 years ago
so your a professional on the dynamics of a collapsing building?
dharman19662u 2 years ago
This is bull shit.
oleander156 2 years ago
I liked the way it ended - good video.
ipeeinthebath 3 years ago
sheepblitzer, I just reviewed my collection of Prof. Griffin's books and found endorsements from Howard Zinn in The New Pearl Harbor and Omissions and Distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report in addition to Debunking 9/11 Debunking. So do you stand by your claim that his blurbs are being taken out of context? If so, why hasn't he complained about such chicanery? Can you now admit that you have been confused? That DRG is NOT a charlatan as so many of us truthers consider Alex Jones to be?
gretavo 3 years ago
Don't hold your breath. Sheeplitzer is a moran who can't deal with the facts.
urbild 3 years ago
The europeans by a large majority believe 911 was an inside job. I came to the conclusion it had to be an inside job and tend to believe Webster Tarpley's analysis.
9streetbob 3 years ago
Unfortunately their leaders are just as much beholden to the official fairy tale, given the recent ignoring of the presentation given at the European parliament. And no offense but personally I think Webster Tarpley is a "false flag truther"...
gretavo 3 years ago
There is no offense taken. Tarpley is good because he's the only one that has been able to say who is ultimately behind all this without the histrionics of Alex Jones. It is definitely the financial oligarchy that rules most of the world. It is clear we do not live in a democracy but an oligarchy of some fashion.
9streetbob 3 years ago 2
"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing mysteries surrounding the 9/11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."
-Howard Zinn
urbild 3 years ago
In August 2007, National Medal of Science winner Dr. Lynn Margulis praised The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, saying they provide "overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable", while calling for a new investigation.
gretavo 3 years ago
and another crank:
former CIA agent Robert Baer:
"Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation--not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture--we will never know what happened on 9/11. David Griffin will never let this go until we get the truth."
gretavo 3 years ago
So to recap, we have two votes for Howard Zinn (gretavo and crackahcrackah) and one vote for Michael Savage (sheepblitzer). Anyone else have an opinion to voice?
gretavo 3 years ago
you are a real jackass gretavo
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
i happen to despise savage. but according to you i voted for him. are we begining to see why the term "nut" is so often applied?
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
you get what you ask for sheep. i'm giving you a taste of your own medicine. you sink to accusing the publishers of quoting Zinn out of context for their purposes. since you're so dismissive of people who question 9/11, calling them nuts, I put you down for a vote for Michael Savage and your precious Islamofascist myth. You've made the bed of ignorance, now lie in it and take it from Savage like a man!
gretavo 3 years ago
so i guess noam chomsky also votes for savage too then, so does a majority of non-nutcase americans, were all in bed with savage. cuz he must have been the one who made up the official story right? just like how book covers can talk and be the original source of Zinn-quotes....
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
now we're getting somewhere. from the video it is CLEAR that Savage was pimping the official BS from day one, literally. figuring out from there how many other people went along with it isn't so hard is it? the more interesting question is why people like you and chomsky don't get with me, zinn and griffin and millions of others to once and for all ask the hard questions that will reveal the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. its not a puzzle anymore, just takes some courage.
gretavo 3 years ago
Zinn is obviously endorsing that the QUESTIONS be asked. but going around the web attaching this quote to the "9/11 truth movement" and their commonly presumed ANSWER ("9/11 was an inside job") may be taking it out of context. these are basic question of sources, correct citation, and honesty. why this is so hard for you to comprehend i do not know. that and constantly marking down my comments because im questioning you says alot. then again i would expect nothing else from a conspiracy nut
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
wow, ok, lets try this again. no shit its ON the back of the book. but thats not where it originated from. Zinn must have said it somewhere at sometime... and where or whenever that was he must have also been saying something else. that is called the context. i was just asking that you explain this context. I wasnt saying Griffin made it up.
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
saying that they "deserve to be investigated" doesnt mean he's endorsing them. maybe he wants them investigated so they can be proven wrong. you should provide more context into Zinn's quote before making him out to be a conspiracy nut.
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
Sorry blitzer, but if you say that *questions* deserve to be investigated you are endoring those questions. And how can a question itself, as opposed to an answer, be wrong? Finally, your knee-jerk fall back to the hackneyed "conspiracy nut" charge reveals that you yourself have rejected a priori the questions that Zinn says deserve to be investigated. In other words, you are dismissing something without even understanding it, which is what this video is all about. Thanks for your feedback.
gretavo 3 years ago
theres nothing wrong with asking questions. and i agree with Zinn they should be investigated... but the problem with the "truth movement" is they are already assuming the answers (a.k.a. "because the government did it") before said investigation.
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
Oh and since I didn't explicitly make it clear, the Zinn quote is from the back cover of Griffin's book, those blurbs are considered to be endorsements.
gretavo 3 years ago
and no the quote did not come from the back of Griffin's book. Zinn must have said it at some point before then.... thats what i meant by context. slapping a quote on the back cover to sell copies may have taken it OUT of context, just like you may be doing...
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
The quote IS on the back of the book, and presumably that counts as an endorsement, or else Zinn would have asked that it not be put there, or sued, or whatever. You seem to believe more in conspiracies than we do, if you think that the author and publisher are trying to falsify or misleadingly imply endorsement by Howard Zinn. If you're right, why hasn't Zinn publicly clarified that he was not actually endorsing the book claiming his support?
gretavo 3 years ago
ah, so the back covers of books don't actually issue forth speech themselves--great insight! your accusation then is that the author and publisher are deceptive manipulators. I've written to the publisher to ask about Zinn's quote and I will also take it up with Prof. Zinn if necessary. Thanks for the challenge, sheep!
gretavo 3 years ago
The quote is from the back cover of Griffin's book. Maybe you should look into the issue a bit before expressing more opinions!
gretavo 3 years ago
actually this is getting nowhere and apparently i have you confused. so just to clear things up, change the very first sentence of my original post to: "saying that the questions 'deserve to be investigated' doesnt mean he's endorsing your presumed answers." then forget the rest of this convo happened. peace out nut
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
in other words, you have nothing but nitpicking and namecalling to run with here. and complaining that you get voted down when calling people nuts with nothing to back up the charge you're just demonstrating more of your frustration at being wrong.
gretavo 3 years ago
"being wrong?" i asked you a simple question and am still awaiting an answer, so how can i be wrong?
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
"i dont think much of these theories"
----
"[the 9/11 truth movement] is diverting enormous amounts of energy away from real crimes of the administration which are far more serious."
-Noam Chomsky
sheepblitzer 3 years ago
Bring it on, truth-haters!
gretavo 3 years ago
I love the cognitive dissonance crossing the face of the girl at the end when she is told about Zinn's endorsement of the questions.
crackahcrackah 3 years ago 3
actually look at the face of the girl on the left, look for her eyebrows going up as she looks back at fauxhawk girl - I read it as, well, what DO you say to that? Looks like a closet truther to me--we have lots of those on campus. :)
gretavo 3 years ago