Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The Realist Report - Ace Baker


On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined by Ace Baker, producer of the documentary 9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera. Ace and I will be discussing his 9/11 research.

You can download the mp3 for this program here, or visit The Realist Report on BlogTalkRadio to subscribe via iTunes and view past programs.

29 comments:

  1. Good show. Sounds like everyone is pretty much in agreement on most issues except for:

    * The use of composited imagery layered on top of pre-rendered CGI footage
    * The veracity of the "jumper" footage
    * The veracity of the actual victims and numbers of victims

    Is this important?

    I think it is.

    At the end of the show, Ace says "we don't need to fix this". We can all just go home and live our private lives now.

    We don't need to fix this?

    What happens if we don't fix this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. John,

    Were you aware, before scheduling this interview, that Ace Baker had faked his own suicide on air in 2009?

    And having seen his documentary, what did you think of 19 minutes into part 2 where he has a cartoon video of Dick Cheney singing and acting ridiculous?

    I listened to the entire interview and never heard you raise either of these points, despite discussing parts of his documentary in detail.

    Near the end of the interview, you asked a very good question about the hazy pictures we saw from the live footage on 9/11 and he made the amazing claim that it wasn't out of place to have such a hazy skyline on the East Coast in September. Really? I'm familiar with Toronto, and have seen a hazy skyline downtown many times, but only during the summer months.

    His answer doesn't address why the live footage is so hazy, given that most (if not almost all) of the purported amateur footage shows a clear blue sky, despite him asserting, upon your press for clarity, that the amateur footage was real, except for fake planes.

    Despite your repeated attempts to invoke September Clues, he obviously had no interest in specifically refuting any of the claims in it, nor did he justify the claim that Simon reported him as saying, that around 98% of September Clues was disinfo.

    Here is an article I wrote about this, with the video links in question.

    http://fauxcapitalist.com/2013/11/10/why-is-john-friend-giving-a-platform-to-ace-baker-who-discredited-himself-by-faking-his-own-suicide-on-air/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi FauxCapitalist, thanks for the comment. I was aware of Ace's fake suicide on Jim Fetzer's radio program, and I even had it on my outline for this program to bring up and ask him about. I probably should have, considering it IS a big deal if you fake your own suicide... but to be totally honest with you (and everyone else here), I found Ace to be an extremely genuine guy (even though I didn't agree with everything he said during the interview).

      I had some suspicions of him prior to this program, especially considering his fake suicide AND the totally DISHONEST stunt he pulled on Simon Shack (which I was NOT aware of prior to inviting him on the program). See here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynvY2nK5e-I

      And I don't agree with many of the things he said during this program. From what I understand, it IS possible to fake the entire 9/11 footage and present it as real (which is what September Clues has concluded, if I'm not mistaken). I think the "jumper" videos are fraudulent, and I think most, if not all, of the "victims" are fabricated. Both the "jumpers" and the "victims" - and their family members - are crucial aspects of the 9/11 PSYOP, which Ace apparently doesn't recognize or agree with. And that's fine, I still think his take on 9/11 is interesting, unique, and worth talking about.

      I also question the authenticity of the collapse footage, and the imagery of the aftermath of 9/11 (which Dr. Judy Wood and others base much of their research off of). I question EVERYTHING relating to 9/11, as any objective, honest person should. I think there IS indeed a major problem with the hazy background in the 9/11 footage, something Ace didn't seem to be concerned about. From where I stand right now, I don't think that ANY of the footage depicting what took place on 9/11 (the official media footage, the "amateur" footage, etc.) is genuine. Ace thinks it is, BUT fake planes were inserted to sell the 9/11 PSYOP to the public. I disagree, but I'm glad I had him on so he could clarify his views for us all.

      Back to the fake suicide business - I didn't bring it up because I think Ace has been through a lot during his pursuit of 9/11 truth, as well all have. Realizing that the government and media have lied to us and are lying to us about virtually EVERYTHING, especially major events like 9/11, is extremely TRAUMATIZING and emotional. Trust me, I have really only resolved all the trauma in my mind "waking up" to the reality we find ourselves in today relatively recently - and doing these radio programs and writing on my blog has been a major help. It took a loooong time for me to really deal with this stuff on a basic psychological, emotional and even intellectual level. When Ace faked his suicide, I don't think he had fully healed from the trauma associated with coming to the realization that everything he had been told in his life was a lie. That's why I didn't bring it up.

      Delete
    2. I assess Ace Baker to be a very highly intelligent person. Highly intelligent and very knowledgeable.

      I would encourage Ace to take a look at the Structured Methods of Intelligence Analysis mentioned somewhere in the program - and apply them to the fake skyline background imagery question.

      Ace is smart enough to comprehend and use the various investigation tools available.

      Giving Ace the benefit of the doubt, he could be a real asset to all of us. After all, it is very easy to throw mud at the gladiators from the safety of the observation deck.

      Isn't it?

      Delete
  3. Two guests in two days have mentioned this cleveland airport thing. This is not provable in any way. Who said this anyway? Oh yeah, the media. The media as a witness to the court of world opinion, has been verified as giving untruthful testimony, and should be removed from the witness stand, and the jury of world opinion, has to disregard its testimony.

    This fits with stories of multiple shooters at these non shootings. The shootings did not take place, so there are no multiple shooters. The planes were computer graphics, therefore they did not take off from airports. Period.

    Another thing, Ace is saying that the overall footage was probably real because the video needs to render and can not be done in real time. This is the point on this issue...It was not done in real time. It was done before the event took place. All the rendering was done before hand. It was ready to go, and then the airplanes were inserted onto the pre packaged 'matrix' shots, that were not from helicopters, but were fraudulently portrayed as helicopter shots. Simon Shack's September Clues states this clearly.

    The technology for digital realistic city skylines did exist in 2001. Check out the spiderman trailer, armageddon, independence day, deep impact. Its a very hard concept to grasp I agree, but I think I am getting there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,

      You're definitely "there" already.

      As it turns out, when performing detailed analysis of the event - the issue of pre-rendered CGI graphics with a composited overlay defines itself as highly "sensitive" and corroborates the bulk of other evidential loose ends.

      I think that's how they did it.

      Of course, to prove it we would need to convene a grand jury to secure an indictment against certain specific people. But what statute was violated if nobody died? Difficult problem.

      The only thing that comes to mind is maybe a "crime against peace" and/or a "crime against humanity" - reflecting the charges at Nuremberg.

      I think the perps employed well-established methods of Illusion. Not a terribly difficult thing to do.

      Delete
  4. Ace baker is full of shit. He is a half-way house gatekeeper just like Jim Fetzer. You went way too easy on him John. There was more than ample time for the originally broadcasted video to be produced and movie special effects like those seen in independence day from 1996 testify to the fact that the software existed. Sofia's take on 9/11 is also very suspicious. Why didn't you question him over his fake suicide? Did you agree not to beforehand? So we come away from this thinking that all the video, amateur and otherwise is pretty much genuine, nuclear demolitions are most likely responsible for the 'collapses', the media were unwittingly involved and most of the victims were probably real and genuine. Fuck that! Not at this stage in the game, mate! You have lost respect in my book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. having listened to John Friend for a while, his interviewing style seems to be geared toward allowing the interviewee state their case. It's up to the audience to decide what to think about what is said.

      It's clear where ace baker stands on the issues. Do you support his viewpoint? that is for you to decide.

      I don't think people would be very willing to be interviewed if John had gained a reputation for being belligerent.

      It's now up to us to decide what to think about the various gatekeepers and what they've said.

      Delete
    2. pshea, I think I addressed many of your questions in my response to Faux Capitalism. I have seen you post on Fetzer's radio blog, would you like to be a guest on my program to talk about the JFK assassination?

      Delete
  5. John gives people a fair shake. It is refreshing in my view. Ace Baker's views are his and his alone. He has a right to express them. John has not peddled anything, he has not endorsed anything. He had a conversation with somebody about the World Trade Center Attacks. Nothing more, nothing less.

    We all think for ourselves. I and maybe John as well, are coming to grips with information we have not been exposed to for as long as some others have. The jumper videos, etc., are very emotionally convincing, but if you go to cluesforum.info, they show that it is the same ole' same ole' bullshit to tap into our emotions. Psyop. Let's pause, realize that is what it is, and detach ourselves from the emo bs.

    I remember watching sept clues and not really even knowing what the fuck I was watching. It now makes sense. We are dealing with weaponized illusions.

    This may be lost to some truthers...But the most important thing John did in this interview...In my opinion, was tackle the 'Hitler" Big Lie technique perfectly. He knows the truth about that, he said that 'Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf' about the big lie technique, and how it is often quoted out of context, He put it in context, did not back down, and did so in such a way that anybody who disagreed would be a proven fraud. Ace in his defense, responded admirably, If he has taken the 'Hitler pill' or not, I don't know.

    For any flaws in the interview, that one sequence alone deserves a standing ovation. For any truthers out there, Have you tackled the WW II issue? Have you? That is something else entirely. John has looked at it, and has not wavered. Courage. And I for one will not tolerate any BS about handling guests with kid gloves. 9/11 is ongoing, WW II the facts are in. Get in or get out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now for the first time, I actually understand the no plane scenario! When I think about it, the jumpers look a lot like dummies. They don't swing their arms or legs or balance their bodies which would be a natural reflex, they just fall.

    Amazing was how Ace tried to pin the Big Lie onto Hitler and then associated the US government with "his" technique. Ace needs to brush up on the truth about Saint Adolfo because the media that lies about 9/11, sure lies about Nationalsozialismus also. Otherwise, Ace is a likable guy and I enjoyed listening to your conversation.

    Markus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous said :"...When I think about it, the jumpers look a lot like dummies. They don't swing their arms or legs or balance their bodies which would be a natural reflex, they just fall. "

      I don't believe they were dummies being used- just digital creations inside wholly digitally faked "jumper" videos.

      See" 9/11 Video Fakery:The Fake,13 Foot Tall WTC Tower Jumpers"

      Regards, onebornfree

      Delete
    2. [Either I forgot to include a link, or it got edited out for some reason in my previous post .]

      Anonymous said :"...When I think about it, the jumpers look a lot like dummies. They don't swing their arms or legs or balance their bodies which would be a natural reflex, they just fall. "

      I don't believe they were dummies being used- just digital creations inside wholly digitally faked "jumper" videos.

      See:"The Fake,13 Foot Tall WTC Tower Jumpers" http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/03/911-video-fakerythe-fake13-foot-tall.html

      Regards, onebornfree

      Delete
  7. Regarding my Motion to Exclude Video Evidence:

    COGNITIVE ILLUSIONS

    Cognitive illusions are assumed to be an interaction based on assumptions about the world, which lead to unconscious inferences an idea first suggested in the 19th century by Hermann Helmholtz.

    There are 4 categories of Cognitive illusions, briefly, they are:

    1. Distorting illusions are characterized by distortions of size, length, or curvature.
    2. Ambiguous illusions are pictures or objects that elicit a perceptual ‘switch’ between the alternative interpretations.
    3. Paradox illusions are generated by objects that are paradoxical or impossible, such as the Penrose triangle or impossible staircases seen, for example, in M. C. Escher’s Ascending and Descending and Waterfall.
    4. Fictional illusions are defined as the perception of objects that are genuinely not there.

    In the Digital World, Fictional Illusions are very easy to create.

    TRIAL PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE

    We are putting our case before the Court of Public Opinion.

    In Law Courts there are Trial Procedures that have developed over centuries. Unfortunately, there are no Trial Rules in the Court of Public Opinion. This fact makes it very easy for gatekeepers and disinfo agents to spread lies and confuse issues.

    Long story short, we have Courts to find fact and settle disputes. That is what they are for. Trial procedure generally follows a certain procedural pattern. Normally, before the actual presentation of testimony and evidence before a jury begins Evidence Issues are settled.

    The defense and prosecution request the court, in advance of trial, to admit or exclude certain evidence. These requests are called motions "in limine."

    Pronounced: “in-lim-in-e”.

    In limine means that the request is made before trial.

    Maybe there is some evidence that has some sort of problem. Maybe it was not preserved properly. Maybe it was hearsay which means that it was a statement made outside of court and nobody had a chance to question that witness to determine their credibility.

    In these cases, a Judge makes a determination as to whether or not that evidence should come into court. Because if it does come in, it may favor one side.

    Tom

    (cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  8. (cont'd from above)


    In Federal Court, the 1000-series rules govern video evidence. For example, Rule 1001 contains Definitions.


    • http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1001
    RULE 1001. DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO THIS ARTICLE
    In this article:
    (a) A “writing” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent set down in any form.
    (b) A “recording” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent recorded in any manner.
    (c) A “photograph” means a photographic image or its equivalent stored in any form.
    (d) An “original” of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it. For electronically stored information, “original” means any printout — or other output readable by sight — if it accurately reflects the information. An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it.

    The key here is “If it accurately reflects the information”

    That is the issue. Based on other corroborating evidence, we do not believe that the video on 911 accurately reflected reality. We think that the video on 911 constitutes an intentional type of "Cognitive Illusion" called a "Fictional Illusion".

    In fact, we believe that there was broad use of CGI imagery. We also believe that video compositing overlaid fake video inserted over a CGI background.

    Courts generally allow video evidence. In order to challenge the admission of video evidence under current rules, it would be necessary to examine the video for “evidence of tampering”. In that case, you could have that video excluded.

    This is an area where the Rules of Evidence have not kept pace with advancing technology. It is possible to create a digital scene that does not show “evidence of tampering”.


    Why would the perps choose to present background CGI imagery with composited fake planes? “To fool the mind – combine at least two tricks”. Because the technique of “combining at least 2 tricks” is commonly used by professional illusionists to further confound an audience - methods used by professional illusionists, information warriors.


    Some commenters asked “without the video evidence – what else is there”? Well, the “video evidence” on 911 constitutes “Testimony” by sources unknown who cannot be cross-examined – and that we are all supposed to take as “credible” and unimpeachable. This was the intention of the perps.

    Once you exclude the fake video from consideration, you remove the Cognitive Illusion influence that it was designed to induce. Then, you focus on other available evidence – such as information, testimony (only of witnesses you can cross-examine), physical evidence, and other types of direct and circumstantial evidence.

    There are well-established procedures for getting to the truth in matters such as these. We mentioned a few, such as, Structured Methods of Intelligence Analysis.

    Will this provide “all the answers”? No. But it will ensure you aren’t being tricked. If you want more answers, start arresting people and questioning them.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Two things: I wish you'd log in via an account, so we can see it's you and not "Anonymous". I said to you on a call and I'll say it to you again: your information you provide is the clearest and most important I've seen on the mechanics of psy and info wars.

      I'm going to quote your comment on my blog, since it's also critical in understanding the legalities of these videos.

      Thanks for your contributions.

      Delete
  9. rodin said...

    The technical truth of how 911 was done lies somewhere between the Shack and Baker positions. Shack however seems to me to be the deliberate disinfo here, introducing the turd of "building collapses were simulated". Vicsims / crisis actors yes we know now this is standard issue. IMO all the crisis actors are same tribe as the perps, pretty much, hence the closed shop deception. As for the energetics used in towers 1 and 2 it seems to me some kind of nuclear chemistry was employed. However I also know atom bomb test footage is faked. I think an interesting line of enquiry would be S Jones and cold fusion...

    November 13, 2013 at 10:16 AM
    Blogger Don Damore said...

    I have to get my comment in, even before I have even heard one word from the interview.

    FauxCapitalist said...
    John,

    Were you aware, before scheduling this interview, that Ace Baker had faked his own suicide on air in 2009? Did he say he had a gun in his hand and was about to pull the trigger? No he did not. he might have been trying to say; Fetzer, sometimes you really do piss me off!

    lindseynarrates said...

    "Ace Baker" is as low as you can go as far as interviewing a guest is concerned, and I am appalled that this guy was on the program.

    Lindsey, Why, I hope you are not suggesting that 9/11 truth would have been served better had Ace Baker not had made this video?

    Ace Baker has produced the best 9/11 truth documentary. He really has identified the perps, he does point the finger of blame directly at the TV news media, and he does mention the Israeli "B team" and attempts to uncover their plot.

    Thanks John for getting Ace on your show. I tried to contact him a couple of times a year or two ago just to say thanks for his contribution to 9/11. Unfortunately the email address that I found on his blog bounced.

    I did not seek Rodin's permission to post the comment he made at Mami's; but I do intend to endorse them hear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don,

      If you buy into the comments you just posted - that doesn't say much for your critical thinking ability.

      Sadly, many people simply are not smart enough to understand how human perception works and how illusions can exploit human perception.

      You should probably keep the turds over at mami's.

      No need to pollute this blog with utterances of people who obviously don't know what they're saying.

      Delete
    2. rodin is a troll. Calling Simon Shack a disinfo agent? Yeah...ok. Sure.


      rodin troll could not even support any of the stupid attacks and ridiculous statements with any sort of logic or reason.

      The facts indicate that ALL of the video was manipulated, tampered with and outright "created" in many cases.

      This means the you DID NOT see ANY actual footage of the various building collapses. But apparently trolls are intent on trying to get others to keep looking at the CGI footage and pretend it's telling them about something "real".

      The footage was CGI. Got that?

      You can't trust what you see on the Talmud Vision. Got that?

      Ok. Back under the bridge with you :)

      Delete
    3. You guys are nuts. Are you really saying that the magician does not really cut the woman in half? That he spends a great amount of time planning and coordinating it to look that way by making fake feet and putting it into a different box? And the woman is in on the scam? Really? I saw him cut the woman in half and put her back together with my own eyes! Can't you guys see? He cuts the woman in half!

      Delete
    4. Calm down Anon 1:45, Simon Shack and pals have been going around for years telling everyone the "jesuits" did it even though there's a list of jews a mile long associated with 9-11. I guess all these jews are jesuit priests in disguise, possible media-fakery making them look like women too!!

      In light of this, it's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of Shack and co., even if the info is mostly legit.

      Delete
  10. Quite interesting to listen to how the controlled opposition behave these days. You don't believe that the 911 operation management retired that day? Do you? among other thing, they are running a controlled opposition.

    “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” - Lenin

    So today we got to hear their version. Was very predictable to me. I understand that people who even can make themselves believe in energy weapons and nuclear demolitions, etc, could find this performance impressive, but not to me, not at all.

    “The objective of DISINFORMATION is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is BELIEVABLE and nothing is KNOWABLE. ” - Jim Fetzer

    Here he attempted to make nuclear demolitions credible, and is protecting the medias involvement in this operation. So it was Kai Simonsen in chopper 5 who inserted the planes in the real videos so everyone in the control room were fooled? And the notational news reporters knew nothing, they were just reading their lines on the teleprompter. I suspect that is the mission he is on, and that he hasn’t told us about.

    So most or every video 911 were real, except the planes part, according to him.

    Very crucial for the controlled opposition to protect the basis for the War on Terror, etc. AB appears to promote a not so very credible denial of the official plane story. This is to hijack believers in the no-plane fraction. Most if not all the victims were real. Even the jumpers, and the passengers and the planes landed somewhere, and were killed on the airport. So they got their needed victims at least. Again, crucial for the 911 operation management to maintain the perception of the victims part of the story, if they are going to continue the WoT, etc. The gas chamber victims are crucial for the holohox industry too you know. Victims are some wonderful tools can be. That part of the story must always be protected, and is one of the major reasons we have shills.

    Even Granny understand that the jumpers were faked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkvIV5CeLJ0
    Dumb Question - Where are the passengers? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDshVgRx2Xw
    SS on AB: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1094&start=30
    -

    ReplyDelete
  11. All the videos are fake... yer, right.

    If they were all made in advance, how come the nose in; nose out was broadcast? The perps couldn't get that bit right but managed to produce a seamless and fantastic reproduction of what didn't really happen, but as got us all believing that it did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don Damore

      Please consider this carefully:

      "Everything you saw - everything that was broadcast to you - you were INTENDED to see".

      They didn't F-up anything concerning the digital video.

      You would benefit by studying "Magic" and "Illusionism". Study the principles. Study how various illusions are constructed.

      In addition to the Magicians principle of "Combining at least 2 tricks" to fool the mind - there is another important one.

      "Nothing is more convincing than the lie you tell yourself."

      How does this work? You're giving us all a pretty good object lesson on how it works through your statement above:

      You said:
      "If they were all made in advance, how come the nose in; nose out was broadcast? The perps couldn't get that bit right but managed to produce a seamless and fantastic reproduction of what didn't really happen, but as got us all believing that it did."

      Here, you are rationalizing internally. You are convincing yourself that the skyline footage video must be authentic. That it couldn't have been CGI because of the "accidental" nose-out footage.

      Don, you underestimate the enemy. You also underestimate Magicians...good ones, at least.

      We believe that they got the all of the video "right". Including the "nose-out" video.

      We believe that you (all of us) were intended to view that footage. We believe that it was part of the overall "trick".

      I won't waste time here debating this issue. However, consider my statement here as constituting a "hypothesis". I mentioned the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses earlier. This hypotheses can be tested against the pool of available evidence and probabilities. In fact, it has already been. And it stood up quite well.

      And that is why I am mentioning it.

      Bottom line: We must reject the video as constituting "evidence" because it was actually part of the "Magic Trick" of 911.

      You saw what the perps intended for you to see.

      Difficult concept? Watch Penn & Teller for a while. Maybe that'll help.


      Tom

      Delete
  12. Interesting review of this show by the Fakologist and Simon Shack:

    http://fakeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ep76-Simon-Shack.mp3

    ReplyDelete
  13. It seems that no one has referenced my articles detailing correspondence and interaction with both Ace Baker and Simon Shack. If people actually read them, they should be able to understand what these characters are up to - or at least, what the outcome of what they have done is:

    http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

    Before you make any decisions about Plane Fakery, I suggest you study Richard Hall's analysis.

    http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60

    I have just been listening to John Friend's interesting interview with Dr Eric Karlstrom - which is OK, but Dr Eric seems to miss out an awful lot - and referencing a 2007 talk by Dr Wood seems strange - when there is newer, more complete research available (on the first link about, or here):

    http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=365&Itemid=60

    2011 UK Tour here:

    http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=339&Itemid=60

    Why is this not discussed? Hutchison Effect, Energy link to 9/11, Hurricane Erin, Qui Tam case - all omitted from the discussion... weird...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anyone intrigued by Ace Baker's theories regarding the 9/11 attacks on the WTC should be aware that most of his arguments are specious and grossly misrepresent facts that can be easily checked for verification. His videos--full of disinformation, misrepresentations, and critical omissions--continue to get thousands of new views each month on YouTube, misleading a lot of people genuinely interested in the truth of 9/11.

    In response to this disinformation, I have created a blog exposing many of the lies propagated in his "documentary". I recommend that you take a look at the information I have presented and then make your own conclusions as to the his honesty and the veracity of his claims:

    http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-lies-of-ace-baker.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. In my opinion, Ace Baker hits the nail on the proverbial head. There were no planes, and I think his arguments as to why are compelling and unfortunately quite accurate.

    his laid back demeanor and his hippy appearance probably cause his solid arguments to be dismissed more than they should. Imho, ace is a hero for his courage and talent. My epiphany was the moment I saw the video of the towers exploding with no planes. Everything just clicked.

    of course there were no planes.

    of course it was a controlled demolition.

    It's clear as day.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Look at the hizergonie (not sure if spelt right) clip of 2nd "plane" hitting tower, look at black building behind to the left & watch the wing pass behind when it should indeed pass in front, if this doesn't prove 100% once & for all this video is fake then I'm an alien from the planet Vulcan, please check out the clip in slow motion and see for yourself

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.