A few debunking links

I never said they weren't real. What I asked was, do you really think that's the way the government operates? Do you really believe that Northwoods wasn't an aberration, but the norm? Do you really believe that somehow a stupid plan like that could make it past everyone, including the president and never be divulged from anyone in the loop? If it is the norm, how could something like Northwoods be made public? Why would the joint chiefs risk exposure to the cabinet, the president and anyone else within earshot?

Your information regarding the drills is incorrect. The drills did not "replicate the exact same attack" On the contrary it was a test of our ability to monitor the Russian jets, who were also running a bombing exercise in the north Atlantic. Again, the military and in specific the airforce trains EVERY day. The chances of an attack taking place during some form of aircraft detection / defense training is 100%.

Investigations are not simply performed by looking at videos. Investigations are conducted by compiling ALL the evidence, both circumstantial and direct, and forming a conclusion based on the entirety of the available knowledge. I know how someone could look at the video and conclude it was a demolition. I don't know how someone could look at the entire spectrum of evidence and come to the same conclusion.

What does this piece of evidence lead you to believe? You believe that someone at the BBC needed to know that the building was going to collapse before it did? Why? What sense does that make? If you believe that, you must also believe that no one at the BBC is willing to admit that they were handed a script by the actual perpetrators? The BBC is in on it too? That can't be right, can it?

9/11 truthers rely on disjointed bits of circumstantial evidence. That's because the entirety of the evidence points in a completely different direction. Instead, truthers have to pick and choose which pieces that they "like" and be ready and willing to completely disregard them when a skeptic points out the reality of the situation. There never needs to be a defense of the truther evidence, all they do is skip on to the next piece regardless of how the next piece fits with the previous piece. Contradiction is no impediment to the course of truther logic.

.

Case in point. On we plod into more and more truther speculation. Never has there been an scientifically reviewed test of this truther conjecture. Never has there been a scientifically reviewed explanation of what DID go through the building if it wasn't a hijacked aircraft. What we have here again, is a truther who looks at a picture and draws a conclusion without reviewing all the evidence. They failed to review the DNA found on scene. They failed to review the reconstruction of wreckage found on site. They failed to review the testimony from those on scene. They failed to review the radar tracking, the engineering reports, the countless scholarly articles addressing the subject. And even if they ARE aware of these things, they are perfectly willing to toss them under the "it's part of the conspiracy" bus.

PNAC makes me laugh too. How is it, that these nefarious neocons who were willing to murder AMERICANS in order to achieve power are all out of power? Seriously. These guys supposedly have a death grip on the lips of EVERYONE involved in the 9/11 attacks which prevents them from speaking out about the neocon involvement, yet where are they now? Everything they wanted indeed...

 

And? Its been over 11 years since 9/11 and not a peep.

Those drills are common knowledge and last up to a week. Again, do you have ANY evidence the war games actually affected ANYTHING on 9/11?

Well, let's see. How about if you LISTEN to the collapse? Controlled demolitions have explosions going off just before and during the collapse. There were none. Just because it LOOKS like a controlled demolition doesn't mean it IS a controlled demolition.

The FDNY reported some five hours before the collapse that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. The BBC would have been alerted to that fact.

Really? The hole is 16' in diameter. The diameter of the fuselage of a 757 is 14'. Last time I checked, something 14' in diameter fits into a hole that is 16' in diameter.

Plenty of pictures of engine pieces. Not sure why you would think they would be whole.

First off, get your facts straight. Hani Hanjour did numerous solo flights on single and multiple engine planes. Pretending he could barely fly a cessna is a blatant lie. The turn wasn't even a complete turn, much less two turns. It was about a 300 degree turn and took him almost three minutes to complete. I've been in more violent turns by far going in to Midway in Chicago.

As for "the only reinforced section of the Pentagon", what's your point? They had a one in five chance of hitting that side.

According to who? Truthers? The people who were there recovered the wreckage and found parts of the bodies of everyone on board according to DNA tests.

So what does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

Was that false?

Once again you take to lying to try and exaggerate your point. The PNAC document was released in 97. Four years is not the same as one, is it.

And where is your evidence of this? Are we suppose to just believe you and your "good word"? I don't think so.

Bush wanted to delay the 9/11 commission report because he didn't want it interferring with the real investigation by the FBI.

Another blatant lie by you. The FBI investigation started within hours of 9/11 and continued for numerous years.

We probably have plans for invading every country on this planet. It is called being prepared.

As for domestic extremists, the very fact you're here spouting your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) proves they aren't going after the extremists.

Next!

 

Sonata0889,

You see how they come out of the woodwork and pile on. There's not a thing they say that could not be dismantled, IF one wanted to spend the time. But that is exactly what they want you to expend, TIME, ............uselessly defending your every word against every inane objection and diversion they can dream up.

That's why Prince Lutz Alot does his itemized statement thingy even though half of what he says amounts to little more than
"I've got my great big attitude 'cause I'm a gruff little bull dog, and I say you're stupid and so is everyone who agrees with you, so there.....nyah.....

I suppose there are fools who fall for it the same way CowboyJoo wants everyone to think he's the living incarnation of Lt Bromhead straight out of Zulu. "If you attack me, you are not only attacking a Goyim, but the very image of Britain's finest."
It's sort of like Prince Lutz Alots use of the Marine Corps Bulldog. Don't let them fool you.

They figure that if enough of them can pile on they can either badger them away or better yet persuade them to doubt their own eyes and ears by nothing more than a consensus of opinion. Who really thinks that Zionist disinformation agents couldn't conjure up a few "witnesses" of their own?

That's what this debate and everything else boils down to; WHO RUNS THE US. Is it the Zionists with their headquarters in New York and Tel Aviv or is it the American population of ordinary (NOT CHOSEN) people? It certainly isn't the WASPs anymore. Half of them are brain dead from having been Zombiefied by TV and movies. Any Goy who rises to the top only does so only if they allowed to by the powers that be, ie those who control the nations purse strings. That means acquiring the Kosher seal of approval much in the same way that over half of the items in the grocery store bear the seal of the Orthodox Union.


These people cannot possibly be more convinced of what they are saying than anyone else. The reason why is that they have no more proof for what they are alleging than that which exists for controlled demolitions and Zionist subterfuge.

All you have is their word. If you trust that after you have experienced first hand what they have to offer then you have a problem in the critical thinking department. That's because when you critically examine what they are asserting what you find after you've peeled away all the name calling and huffing and puffing is nothing more than all the causes of the original controversy, namely dozens upon dozens of inexplicable "coincidences", suspicious "anomalies", and other facts which are like so many pieces of a puzzle, which when you put them all together point to one inescapable conclusion:

Elements of US and Israeli intelligence KNEW of the presence of the so called "terrorists" because they had been monitoring them. Therefore there is no way in HELL that they could not have known what they were up to. What this means is that at a bear minimum there was advance knowledge of the attacks which in all probability was relayed to the upper echelons of power circles, where certain parties were made privy to the exclusion of others. This makes at least a few people along the line guilty of a great big fat sin of omission and nothing less than that!

It is just as likely that these same people used the Arab dummies to help "secure the realm" by aiding and abetting them on their mission all along the way. At the same time, these pals informed their profit motivated friends connected to the war industries and sundry businesses of the potential. Business can make some strange bed fellows if the profit is mutual, don't you think? And so WHO WOULD PROFIT FROM ALL THIS?

These clowns would have you believe that nothing that the government ever does is done in secret and therefore there is no such thing as a classified document. That being the case, then why in the devil is there so much refusal to release these documents which no one can keep their mouths shut about? And what in the world was all the skullduggery and stonewalling the 9/11 Commission about since there is absolutely nothing to hide? For Pete's sake, the combined wrath of all the Truthers can't get the computer program that NIST created because it would "jeopardize national security". Isn't anyone willing to blab about that?

Are we to believe that the entire US government is comprised of a bunch of Polly Annas running the Good Ship Lollypop?

Of course we are. There can be no scoundrels in the halls of Congress or in the military. Everyone knows that the only scoundrels in the US government were those which framed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, low lifes like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. How do I know these things? Why TV tells me so!! Don't you know anything? You should spend more money on theater tickets and more time texting.

You can think of the US "Government" as a single entity if you want to. This would define it to be every single mother's son who is employed by it. OR you can think of it as the set of laws, rules, and regulations which have been written for the people to implement and abide by. As they say, "Rules are made to be broken". And one would be a fool to imagine that there is no such thing as a government employee who would do such a thing.

So no, I am not inclined to indict the entire "US Government" as one great big evil entity that conspires to kill it's own people. At the same time there is no inviolate law of the universe which bars "evil doers" from entering into it anymore than the most well intentioned congregation can bar the devil from attending services.

The trick is to only assign guilt where it is applicable.

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

I've burned huge brush piles before and I can attest that the heat coming from it can be enormous..........on skin.

I would even go so far as to say that the pain of having that much heat at my back side would be awful enough to make me jump from a window hundreds of feet in the air. Although I can't swear which would be worse, the pain or the terror.

Of course even having a match stuck to my skin would be excruciating. But I doubt if either would have that much on steel beams (with all the insulation knocked off.)

Which by the way, how is it that all De Bunkos KNOW that ALL the insulation was knocked off.

Just how was it that they proved that?

Run it by me one more time again. You know how stupid all we "Twoofers" are.

 

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fire.htm

 

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fire.htm

 

I went through and debunked those buildings one by one. Why don't you address my posts? Why do you ignore them? Is it because you know you can't refute the facts? Are you hoping people just ignore your constant evading? It's fairly apparent, whenever you get backed into a corner you got back to anti-semite then post the same stuff over again. Not very clever.

 

Fangbeer, Patriot911 and plague311 have presented evidence, facts and sources to back up their argument.
Your entire response as been childish name calling and "Jews are bad, mmkay?".

 

thats what these paid shills are paid to do.the only one that has posted that isnt a paid shill is gary,you can tell because he not only ran off with his tail between his legs like the paid shills always do when they are confronted with videos of facts and evidence they cant refute,unlike they,he ran off and hasnt come back,thats how the ones that are afraid and in denial always do,they dont keep coming back humiliating themselves having to resort to lies in their posts everyday when they are defeated likes these guys do.hee hee.

 

Patriot's been here 3 1/2 years.

I've been here a year and a half.

plague has 6 months under his belt.

You've been here a little over a month. In that time you've posted more than twice what plague (the original poster) has posted. You've almost posted as much as all three of us combined. A scant thin percentage of it had anything to do at all with the OP, or the premise of the OP. What in the world could you mean that we've "come out of the woodwork" to "pile on?"

Sonata, in typical truther fashion, came here to post a shotgun blast of trivia with little regard for following that trivia to an actual logical conclusion. As always, when the trivia is questioned, the point is shifted to some other peice of trivia, or disregarded as "one of the weaker pieces of evidence." But Sonata (and truthers in general) rarely dare to carry the premise to a logical end. Because at that point the premise makes little sense at all.

Let's take the WTC7 event as an example. Sonata can't imagine how anyone can watch a video of the collapse and not come to the conclusion that the building was intentionally demolished. Sonata attempts to bolster this conclusion by pointing out the BBC reporting, and other random bits of regurgitated knowledge. Were does that really lead us? Sonata doesn't dare tell us. Well, I've heard various completely unsupported theories from folks who DID dare. Here are some of the silliest:

1. The building was designed and built with a self destruct system in place. Apparently everyone involved with the project thought an auto-destruct button that could be pressed on a whim was a great idea. Nothing makes an owner more comfortable than when they know their multi-million dollar building and its contents could explode at any moment. Building code inspectors loved the idea, or completely missed the explosive charges attached to the steel they signed off on. No one noticed the system, or cared about it at all during 20 years worth of tenant fitouts and building improvements. Finally, idea was put to good use in 2001 when the other buildings in the complex were hit with aircraft. Silverstein, after making sure to notify the BBC that the WTC was going to be demolished, pressed the red button under his desk, and the entire building came crashing down. And he'll get away with it too, as long as no one from the engineer's office that designed the auto-destruct, no one that constructed the auto-destruct, and no one that maintained the auto-destruct are willing to come forward to admit their involvement. They're all in on it. In fact, after his PBS interview slip-up, Silverstein hired an army of people after the fact to argue with people on the internet in order to muddy the waters. They have been instructed by their handlers to "come out of the woodwork" and convincingly refute everything everyone has to say about everything. But they'll never be able to prove that WTC7 wasn't wired to explode right from the start, and that's the truth.

2. The building was prepared for demolition before hand by a crew pretending to be there to perform building modifications. They were able to draw attention away from their bomb planting endeavors by claiming to be putting in a TOP SECRET CIA SKY BUNKER! The secret sky spy bunker was reinforced against nuclear missiles so the building should have been extra super strong in the middle. Clearly they had to riddle the super fortress with lots and lots of demolition charges so that it could be both invulnerable to attack and easy to blow the heck up. None of the other tenants' suspicions were piqued by this and they all went about their business as usual. This crack team of demo experts placed super advanced high explosives that make no sound in strategic areas of the rest of the building so that they could carry out a false flag attack against America. They wired WTC1 & WTC2 as well because it had to be 3 buildings or the American people wouldn't be coaxed into multiple wars. They told no one, except the WTC7 building owner who let the plan slip on a PBS documentary when he said he decided to pull it. Oh, and they told the BBC what was going to go down because they know how easily the BBC can mess up a story and they wanted to make sure they would get it right. Aaaand they told the firefighters who knew the building was going to collapse. But no one else. Except for all the Jews. They all called in sick that day. But that's it.

3. Silverstein, being Jewish, wanted to gain financially from the events of the day. As such he decided to tell some firefighters to blow up his billion dollar building. The firefighters said, "that's such a good idea that we'll do it and we'll never tell anyone we were involved." and they decided to blew up his building for him. Once they let the BBC know what was going to happen, they had someone perform a countdown over municipal band radio and they pulled it. Once the building was gone, Larry was free to pay the port autority 10 million dollars a month in rent for a lot that would have no rentable tenant space on it until a new building could be built at an expense that far exceeded the insurance payout for the demolished building. A brilliant plan if I've ever heard one.

4. It was a space based hurricane powered matter transmogrifier. Yeah. That's right. It's not a typo. All the data shows that it probably exists! You haven't heard about it because the oil companies probably don't want anyone to know about the technology. But it exists. It totally does. And it this technology that no one knows about is the only explanation for the entire tower turning to dust, rusty cars, and holes in buildings. I read a 700 page popup picture book written by a woman that totally didn't suffer any brain damage from her traumatic head injury that makes it true.

 

Sometimes I lose track of just how hysterically retarded the truther theories are until someone posts them in plain English like Fangbeer just did.

 

stands up and gives standing ovation.yep he is seeing it alright how all these paid shills come out of the woodwork alright and pile on lie after lie to try and get you to take their bait so they can waste your time just like their handlers pay them to do.No matter how many times you bring up facts about bld 7 and how many videoss you post they blatantly ignore it calling you a tin foil hatter.

But they lose REALLY their credibility all the time constantly here ignoring those credible people in that patriots question 9/11 link and having the logic that they are not credible but our corrupt government institutions and the lamestream media DO despite as he pointed out so well,they have a LONNNGGGGGGG history of lying to the american people,they should start a comedy club with their logic they have.

 

That's some imagination youseskees have there Plaque. Your garbage, not mine.

If you planted enough of that kind of stuff on the internet, people might get the idea that everyone who is convinced that controlled demolitions brought down the WTC bldgs actually thought that way.

But I believe in giving credit where credit is due....... directly to the disinformation agents who made the SH!T up and spread it around.

So please don't attribute your ideas to me. I wouldn't want to steal anything from you. This is unlike someone like Bernie Madoff who would. You wouldn't want me to go around and accuse all the Jews of being money hungry thieves just because of him would you? That would be a vicious unmerited stereotype wouldn't it?

If you don't want to be lumped yourselves then you shouldn't lump others.

Now here is a classy presentation:

Listen and learn.
[video=youtube;ABuCO5ifeIE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABuCO5ifeIE[/video]

 

I will say that is a top 5 of truther breakdowns. Definitely one of the better. Over at JREF the man who posts here as Scott (the linkbot I call him), posts as fatfreddy88 over there. He went on a bit of a hissy fit, calling people shills. sts60 decided to gather up his criteria, it turns out that he matched his own criteria! Who would have thunk it?

 

Hey guy, wtf are you talking about? I haven't said anything to you since the last page, and you called me a waste of time. Why are you addressing me again? Furthermore, what the hell are you talking about? I didn't say you had any ideas, I wouldn't make that accusation.

I can sum up all of my answers to all of your questions. From this point forward it is very fair to assume that if you find something intriguing and you agree with it, I will take the opposite stance. Let's just count that as a standard.

 

Hey, how can you call us shills? Let's take a look at Scott (the linkbot). Let's compare myself to Scott, and see who is the shill. Despite me sourcing a post that showed how, using his own criteria, fatfreddy88\cosmored, etc is actually a shill.

Let's dive a bit deeper, if you open up the "spoiler" section of beachnuts post, it will show you all the sites that Scott has flooded with his crap. I post on 2 boards, JREF, and the politicalforum. He has posted the SAME debunked garbage, repeated ad nauseum on at least 10 different boards....multiple times. You can actually see people asking him to leave, telling him he's full of (*)(*)(*)(*), and stating he's posted this (*)(*)(*)(*) several times before. So who's the shill? By truthers standards it is absolutely them. Scott is a prime example, and there's no way it can be contested because he's the one posting it. No one made this up, he's admitted to it proudly. Before you start calling me a shill you better do a bit of research. Truthers have to be the most brain dead group of them all.

How about it Holston? How many boards do you post this anti-semite crap on? Huh, my anti-semite, shill? You fit the criteria of a shill too? As usual, truthers try to point the fingers but it always comes back to them. Good work kids.

 

The problem once again is a truther who failed to get his facts straight.

I assume you meant to address me. Are you claiming to be a truther? Because I was clearly addressing Sonata in the part of the post you are referring to. Did you not only get the person writing the post wrong, but also the person addressed in the post wrong? You clearly didn't bother to respond to the part that WAS addressed to you.

As to the part that wasn't addressed to you: I used Sonata's circumstantial evidence and followed the conclusion drawn from that evidence to its logical end. Each one of those descriptions are actually conclusions that I've seen truthers draw and Sonata was regurgitating bits of trivia that they used to attempt to support those conclusions.

Typically what I find is that truthers form a conclusion, and then collect evidence to support that conclusion. The collection is eclectic, and it's not long before the bits they collect make the conclusion ludicrous. What moron would think that the WTC7 was wired for demolition AND think that the BBC was notified of the demolition before hand? What moron would think that Silverstein slipped up and told PBS that he asked firefighters to demolish his building? What moron would think that the CIA would run command and control of a false flag operation from within the building they intended to blow up?

What my post attempts to show is that the evidence used is contradictory to the conclusion when combined into a whole. That's not my fault. You've already touched on the problem. The problem is that the truthers are spreading disinformation. It's not because paid shills have exposed truthers to disinformation. It's because truthers are willfully trying to cram square pegs into round holes in order to "prove" their forgone conclusions.

 

This is a lengthy film but a good one. I urge all my friends here to watch it. Allow these facts to sink in.

There are so many points that one needs to remember that it is very beneficial to review them until you can recall them quickly and accurately.

This is necessary when dealing with professional disinformation agents. It's not so essential when discussing the matter with people who are merely ignorant. But the idea is to educate them as well. The stupid people are not very susceptible to reason to begin with and most of them do not care about things like this, the future of the country, freedom or much of anything beyond the corporeal necessities of life, or the three F s, feeding, fighting, and ...well, you know. These kinds of people make good subjects in dictatorships.

If you enjoy arguing with De Bunkos be my guest. I enjoy poking at them a little now and then myself just for fun. Otherwise you they are a waste of time. They already know that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. If you think you will ever get them to admit it, you are spinning your wheels.

The people who set up 9/11 will never admit it.
They are being shielded by the media and their shills in the government who are profiting under the Zionist regime.

[video=youtube;itRxWbasTMw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itRxWbasTMw[/video]

 

Can't truthers post any short youboob videos?

 

Doesn't your video spend a good amount of time showing media commentary? If your point is, "don't trust the media" doesn't seem a little illogical to rely on what they say to support your case?

Which of your points are you going to claim is wrong? Is the media lying, or is the video wrong to use the media in support of a claim? I'll bet it's some complicated web of them both lying and being truthful because they are dumb and you're smart, right?

 

Lots and lots of people heard multiple explosions, IN THE LOWER LEVELS, WHERE SMOKE WAS SEEN RISING.
Many also saw flashes. Many many sources, including the FBI thought there were bombs planted in the buildings BECAUSE they HEARD them going off. One example was Barry Jennings, an inconvenient truth for De Bunkos.

Many MEDIA sources commented on how strikingly similar to CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS that ALL THREE of these SUDDEN CLOSE TO FREE FALL, STRAIGHT DOWN collapses.

You people always say, "Where are the witnesses?" You HAVE witnesses. Gobs of them. You just pretend that they don't exist or claim that they are all liars, sensationalists, attention seekers, or people looking to make a fast buck.

And that's as if none of the "official" spokesmen couldn't be persuaded in some way to reach certain conclusions, even where there is evidence they were!


Aside from all the people running around ON THAT DAY, attesting to all these things they saw and heard, you also have GOVERNMENT SOURCES, including INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS like LT COL Shaffer Lindauer; Shaffer WHOSE BOOKS WERE BURNED, and Lindauer who was FALSELY and UNJUSTLY IMPRISONED.

http://www.dontenter.ru/index.php?key=Danger+Colonel


[video=youtube;V29hEu3AQK4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V29hEu3AQK4[/video]



Bottom line:

Elements of US and Israeli intel had advance knowledge of 9/11 and allowed them to or occur probably took steps to facilitate them.

All of this was done at the behest of people within the US and Israel who profited from the attacks and the wars that followed.

As far as I am concerned these are established facts. The reason why they have not been publicly exposed is because the Zionist Khazar "Jews" and their butt buddies have imposed a media black out of all evidence to this effect and because we are now living under a Zionist controlled government.

You Bunkos know this as well as I do. So I don't need to say what that makes you.

I will say this though. You have repeatedly accused me of the tired canard "anti-semite". If being opposed to the people who conducted these operations and those of you who are voluntarily complicit in covering them up is the definition of "anti-semite", then yes, that would make me an "anti-semite". However I do not ascribe to your definitions. I simply can't stand the sight of all these self aggrandizing liars and thieves who masquerade themselves as the Holy Chosen Ones of God when in fact they are nothing more than "a synagogue of Satan".

 

Why bother having an investigation if first impressions are good enough to form a conclusion? Do all those people still believe that bombs were planted in the building after being exposed to more of the available evidence?

Would that be the same media that you claim is lying to protect the people responsible? How's that work?

You have witnesses that have testified circumstantial evidence. Please refer back to my previous post on the subject if you are still confused as to what circumstantial evidence is. When someone says, "(*)(*)(*)(*) that sounded like a bomb!" That is not proof that Jews wired the buildings with bombs. The circumstantial evidence needs to be combined with corroborative evidence. Ideally you want direct evidence like bomb components located in the rubble, or direct testimony from someone that says, "Yeah I sold the bomb." or "yeah I planted the bomb" or "yeah I set the bomb off" or "Yeah I recorded a shockwave on my pressure sensor" But you don't have that. You have folks that say "I dun herd a sploshun"

And this probability is supported with what evidence again? Media reports from outlets that you assert are liars, and witnesses that are using analogy to describe their experience? What about people who were directly involved? No one at all who was directly approached to "facilitate" an attack against America said "woah, motherfker. You're out of your mind?" That's absurd.

 

Quite right.

Screw Loose Change and the Popular Mechanics pseudo debunk are just lame attempts at obfuscation.
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear....9.73.664.11.11.0...0.0...1ac.1j2.piIfFVEvmuA

The government is spending a lot of money to pay public relations agencies to try to obfuscate the 9/11 inside job proof.

Anyone who does some serious research can see that. Those attempts at obfuscation will only sway those who haven't looked at very much of the proof so we have to show them the proof.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLXyB5GtfBU

 

yeah like i said before.griffins book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING debunks popular mechanics and all these OCTA'S know it as well.anyone who defends the official version has obviously never read his book.

 

And then there are some posters who are so incapable of defending their claims that it isn't worth it to even respond. Just sayin'.