Latest replies

Show a clip of when the towers fell how they turned to dust before they hit the ground that one nailed it for me

Jedimidtricks

{Ed033's Note - the only proper investigation into 9/11 is Judy Wood PHd's book, Where did the towers go

Dr. Judy Wood being interviewed on her book on Richplanet.net by Richard D. Hall



www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=76&part=1

www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=76&part=2

www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=76&part=3



www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=78&part=1

www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=78&part=2

www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=78&part=3



Another Interview with Judy Wood PHd on Edge Media about Directed Energy Technology Used On 9/11 to cause the twin towers to turn to dust before our eyes

But the terrorists mention aka al qeida (spelling) hadf nothing to do with it......the plane was a disguised missile.....

It defo look legit......very interesting but why no major noises in the press, if this is true its massive!!!

Depends on what angle your going with I guess! If u are going down the conspiracy theory route then I think the most damning evidence is Tower 7.... Still nobody has explained why it fell. And when you consider what the owner (Silverstein) had to gain by it collapsing.... Its way beyond 'fishy'!
Or you could just go down the 'normal' route and blame the terrorists 100%

Macko

Research who was to gain from the attack on wtc, its deffo not any terrorist or the american public,war or military action creates money and who is in debt to china and japan for trillions of dollars?
frankyscouse

Interesting video ed. I keep saying that it keeps coming back to Nixon, the same people involved in the Bay of Pigs also pop up in Watergate and the major event between the 2 was JFK. And who was behind Nixon? Prescott Bush. George Sr was involved in Bay of Pigs, possibly in Dallas, eventually became President and both him and George Jr gave out a lot of jobs to old Nixon people like Rumsfeld.

Personally i think Nixon wasn't involved in the planning for plausible denialbility reasons, but he sure as hell knew what was going down even if he didn't know the exact details. He knew a lot of those involved. Just what was on the lost sections of the Oval Office Tapes i think would prove it but we'll never know.

Mort

Your of course assuming that there is in fact a plan. Or at least a plan they can publically admit to.

If you look at the movies (yes i know Hollywood has its issues, but they are bound by the laws of physics and what technology is available to the public so they can't show any of the supposed black tech) then basically we are screwed using only what is publically available, as thats all what is in the movies and also what i think you are basing your question on. They can't tell us of any sort of plan using current publicly available technology as there isn't one that would work or if they admitted what plans they have it would be very unpopular.

Would something like "Armageddon" really work? No. Would cause panic so can't admit that.

In "2012" they just basically saved the elite. Wouldn't be popular so there not going to admit that.

So either they have some secret high tech stuff they don't want us to know about that they scavenged/ salvaged, or a top secret defense treaty with an ET race. Neither of which they can publically admit as it involves more questions than answers. Whcih they don't want. So they just keep quiet and let Hollywood put out miracle solutions like "Armageddon" as little more than reassuring propaganda.

Woah woah woah, listen up.
"all this Isreal hate" don't confuse this page with things you hear and see alsewhere in your life, "Gbgb". I expressed my opinion on Isreal, an opinion based on my own suspicions. I never even mentioned the word 'hate'. I don't hate Isreal. Keep your own words in your own mouth don't put them in mine.
You come across as just another 'city-zen' (parrot).
Coming on here telling people how it is (which, let me guess, according to you it's the standard version taught in textbooks, nothing to see here; everything is just exactly as it seems kiddies..), calling people saddo's and such.
I don't like you. I don't like people like you.
One day you might just get the fright of your life.
I hope you do.

The Pea (lacks respect for the average parrot)

I remember seeing it on walking with dinosaurs.


JK92

Its a bit dodgy for a teacher to be asking kids to research into this, the teachers job is to teach what is considered fact. {Ed001's Note - not true, a teacher should be teaching kids how to think for themselves.}

This seems very interesting would like to have a bit of info an maybe a video added, ed whats you opinion on this ?

dio

{Ed033's Note - Sorry, I don't have enough info to make a determination

I seen a documentary on the history channel last year i think with the bodyguards in question,its the only interview they have ever done, they totally refute the claims they were part of the cover up, they claimed jfk would go against protocol and go to the crowds to shake hands etc,and they claim jfk ordered them away so the crowd could see the the president , i am just putting it out there, personally i don't think it made any difference whether they were there or not a couple of snipers would have took him out anyway.
frankyscouse

Iniesta is an has been injured quite regularly in fact

1. The bodyguards being ordered away, there is footage of this on youtube and elsewhere on this site.

2. The zapruder film clearly shows the killing shot coming from the front not behind i.e. the TBD and LHO.

3. The impossibility of someone being able to get off 3 shots in 6 seconds with a shoddy rifle.

It clearly was a conspiracy. Whilst JFK as a film does have its flaws it does open up many avenues to research and it does get you thinking. Garrison's whole investigation was flawed due to his somewhat weird obsession with Clay Shaw/ Bertrand but he was also at the same time onto something.

Many of the people involved in Operation Mongoose and the Bay of Pigs also crop up in JFK's assasination, Watergate and the presidencies of Reagan, Bush sr and Bush Jr.

Coincidence?

I don't believe in them.

Mort

{Ed033's Note - JFK bodyguards being ordered away from the JFK limousine

Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura - JFK assassination

You can find an actual news report regarding this here...
http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=636741&Itemid=1

Graeme, also for the record I havent read the book voodoo histories but if your suggesting David Aaronovitch as a person who can give detailed information on event's that happened I'd be careful. He is a journalist for one, wanted to be a politician but did'nt get the job he wanted and has been found in court to have mis-represented people regarding his writing on his interviews with people.

Supasub

You are working with that presumption, in my opinion. You 'presume' the bodyguards being moved from their position is somehow interlinked with Oswald (also the footage you refer to is not explicit and highly questionable). Your interpretation of the footage is connected to your assertion that he could not have acted alone, therefore you are working from a pre-determined position.

Also, I mentioned it because you brought it up. I was only responding to your quip regarding the accuracy of Oswald having the power to move bodyguards. I was never suggesting that Oswald did - in fact I explicitly say that he would not have had that power and that I don't know anyone who thought he did. I thought I was pretty clear in what I was saying, my main point was regarding the validity of Oliver Stones movie.

cheers for responding though,

Graeme {Ed001's Note - that is a complete load of codswallop. There is nothing highly questionable about the footage, it is clear that the guards are called away and told to go elsewhere, in direct violation of everything they are taught. Otherwise perhaps you would like to explain why they are not at their station next to the car? As the footage is so questionable, perhaps you think they were there? As for my assertion, you might want to rethink that, because you are completely and utterly wrong in the complete nonsense you are saying. My interpretation of the events are not from a pre-determined position at all, unlike yours, clearly. I instead have an open mind, it is viewing the evidence that has made me believe that it could not be a lone gunman acting alone, not my belief in it not being a lone gunman that has made me interpret the footage. Please don't make up lies about what I think, because I am quite capable of using my brain to interpret things. You on the other hand, are only capable of posting half truths, misinformation and blatant lies about other people's opinions, with no basis in truth, no attempt to ascertain if there is any truth in your assertions, just blatant misrepresentation. Just because you follow official lines on everything, doesn't mean we are all as sheep like.}

Would advise reading (the synagogue of satan).
J.F.K was going to smash the federal reserve bank.
They tried to assassinate Woodrow Wilson for doing the exact same thing... Illuminati/Zionists.

Graeme, I was responding to the original post which is trying to help a lad in his gcse's. I'm well aware that JFK has some theory content. What it does have though is countless witness statement's referred to in the film which do carry substantial weight, evidence from various balistic reports, reference's to the majority of JFK's brain missing on the flight from dallas, more witness statement's of miltary doctor's getting involved, (Lee Harvey Oswald would have done well to have slipped that past custom's) and so on.
I think Braveheart was a good film also come to think of it with a little bit of what actually happened within the storyline.
Maybe you could suggest a better film for the lad?

Supasub

You are correct, although I doubt you intended to be. Lee Harvey Oswald would not have the power to arrange the bodyguards to leave their post - I do not know many who think he did. Working from the presumption that he would need to in order to assassinate him is misguided and the wrong approach especially when evidence points to the fact he didn't need to.

Anyway, believing Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK is irrelevant to discussing the historical validity of Oliver Stones film. He got a lot wrong and altered the course of events (i doubt intentionally to misrepresent what happen but probably because it made for a much better story) and using that film as a benchmark as proving a conspiracy is wrong because of the inaccuracies and falsehoods prevalent in the movie. That's the point I was making. If people want to research the events and decide for themselves what happened then they should try and research, as best they can find, accurate and factual information.

Graeme {Ed001's Note - who was working from any presumption? I was talking about the clear footage of JFK's bodyguards being ordered away from their stations on either side of the car. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about, as that is one of the main pieces of evidence that proves that it was not Oswald acting alone. There are very few people with the power to remove the President's bodyguards from their stations. Perhaps you need to do some research yourself, no one at all has suggested Oswald did have them ordered away, I have no idea why you are even suggesting such a thing. Also, you say it was not essential, no maybe not, but it is certainly preferable to not have a body in the way of your shot and to get them far enough away for a second shot to be possible, to make sure of a kill shot.}