Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
William Pepper Joins The Legal Fight For 911-Truth!
#2
A short piece by the Saker.And,as you can see,he really loves "Veterans Today".....SNARK-SNARK

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Short non-Ukrainian sidebar: nukes on 911?


Many of you have commented on Gordon Duff, Press TV and the "Dimitri Khalezov theory" about nukes being used on 911. I just want to tell you that I rate the credibility of Press TV as "poor", of Gordon Duff and "Veterans Today" as "terrible" and Dimitry Khazelov as "unknown". However, one should rate the source and the information given by the source. So to this I will say that

a) there is no physical evidence of the use of a nuke on 911.
b) there is overwhelming evidence of the use of explosives (probably a mix of various types) on 911.

Also, there is the pesky problem of WTC7 which was a very different building from WTC1 and WTC2 whose collapse mechanism was clearly different. Explosives can - and have - explained it. The nuke hypothesis does not.

I don't think that I have the time to go into a detailed discussion of 9/11 now, but for those of you who might wonder why I believe, please see this post (the links in the post are dead, but if there is a demand for it, I can re-upload the documents in question).

As for some US officials selling nukes I will say this: I rate Sibel Edmonds as a "good" source and the info she provides is compatible with what I know. However, it is one thing to sell nuclear technology to Israel or Turkey and quite another to make it widely available. In other words, I am not at all sure that the sale of these technologies has been nearly as big as some might believe.

Generally, I dislike sensationalism. I try to keep an open mind, but as Carl Sagan liked to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am willing to consider pretty much any theory about 9/11, except the ridiculous official fairytale of course, but it better be backed by some solid research and good evidence. Right now, I see the "controlled demolition" as proven far beyond reasonable doubt, so any other theory would have to do better, which would be very hard indeed.

Kind regards,

The Saker

Posted by VINEYARDSAKER: at 14:45 22 comments:
Labels: 911 Truth
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller
Reply


Messages In This Thread
William Pepper Joins The Legal Fight For 911-Truth! - by Keith Millea - 24-05-2014, 06:57 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Updates on 911 Truth Peter Lemkin 7 4,844 06-06-2025, 07:44 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  David Ray Griffin (1939-2022) - We have lost a giant in the 911-Truth community! Peter Lemkin 0 2,091 04-12-2022, 10:18 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Legal Problems Inherent In Bringing Lawsuits Against Those Behind 9-11-01 Peter Lemkin 0 3,773 30-09-2016, 07:46 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Man Who Stared at Goats Now Stares at the Truth David Guyatt 7 14,932 10-04-2015, 03:48 PM
Last Post: Michael Barwell
  CSPAN in USA gives TV time to 911-Truth! Peter Lemkin 3 5,544 22-08-2014, 01:29 PM
Last Post: Dawn Meredith
  The Truth Is Not Enough [for most] - Psychological Factors In 911 Denial Peter Lemkin 3 11,009 19-05-2014, 07:11 PM
Last Post: R.K. Locke
  Google and Youtube suppress 911 truth story David Guyatt 0 3,616 08-02-2014, 09:20 AM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Disinformation Killed 9/11 "Truth" Joe Giambrone 9 12,068 22-01-2014, 10:49 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  What's New From Pilots For 9-11 Truth Peter Lemkin 0 5,287 23-11-2013, 07:57 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Its Official~! Believe in 9-11 Truth?; 50% Chance FBI Rates You A Terrorist! Peter Lemkin 11 10,838 22-10-2013, 10:00 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)