38 Replies to “truth”

  1. That’s why you gotta stay focused. I was distracted until I saw that. Thank you. It’s all coming together now.

  2. Doom, FYI, was curious and stopped by DOTE for the first time since Cohen went off in a huff in March 2017. He’s back.

  3. yeah, it would be nice to see a few more bits from dave cohen. i would comment there, but he banned me.

  4. so i’ve been out with these government professionals. they believe the official conspirarcy theory that planes brought down the twin towers and, i guess WTC 7, which wasn’t even hit by a plane. they think wind power will replace the fossil fuels that are depleting. they called me a “conspiracist” because i question the physics and other aspects of the official conspirarcy theory. jesus wept.

    1. There have been some long threads on the 9/11 towers collapse on UNZ. I enjoy reading all of it. The “conspiracy” of the towers being a controlled detonation by Mossad or the Deep State makes less and less sense to me as time goes on. The rate of collapse of the towers is obscured by a huge dust-cloud. And I find it hard to believe that an operation of this obvious size would still be effectively covered up. Did the Bush administration know? Did the CIA? Did Obama? Was Donald Trump initiated to the conspiracy when he became POTUS? Who exactly did it? And Why?

      1. it seems to me that the burden of proof belongs to those who promoted the official conspiracy theory. They have to explain the many facts that contradict their story, but of course they remain silent. who are they? we can only speculate, but we know some of the probable key players: Dick Cheney, George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. did they have a motive? you betcha. did they have accomplices? probably Isreali Mossad and military special ops.

        have any tall buildings before or since collapsed into their own footprints at near free-fall speeds from a building fire? No. would fires from jet fuel not just collapse these buildings, but pulverize their concrete and melt sections of the structural steel? No. what about WTC7, not even hit by a plane?

        there was also an attempt to discredit those first responders that claimed they heard basement explosions, and an obvious move to destroy evidence by quickly scarpping the steel. they forgot about all that building dust, so samples were recovered and the published scientific results suggest energetic particles like nanothermate were used. those come from military and national labs.

        most of the highjackers were from our ME ally Saudi Arabia, and it was planes carrying Saudi Arabians out of the country that flew on 9/12/01. where did the USA counterattack? Afghanistan and Iraq. we are to believe that the Al Queda operation orchestrated such a complex conspiracy from their cave redoubts in Afghan, ya sure. then what did Saddam do, a professed enemy of Al Queda? nothing.

        why invade and continue to occupy these ME countries? my guess is they are stragetic to US energy interests there. the US fears Iran taking over Iraq oil production and Afghanistan occupation may be a blocking move to any ME or Stans land invasion by China and/or Russia.

        blow this past the boss. see what he/she thinks.

        1. it appears to me that a first plane hit the WTC (1 or 2?) tower. there is independent video of that happening made by a French film crew. it made a shallow hole where it interacted with the building. later that day, there was video of a young woman sitting/standing in the impact wreckage, clear proof that the fuel fire was not that hot and had mostly burned itself out by that time, in that portion of the tower.

          the media film of the second plane hitting the other tower is highly suspect. it shows what appears to be a plane hitting the outside of the building, then disappearing with both wings intact into the exterior, like a hot knife through butter. this is clearly impossible–it is fake. the footage also shows a cross-cutting penetration, cutting through several floors of the tower. this is also impossible for an airplane. my guess is they used some kind of missile to accomplish that impact, then photoshopped a plane over it.

          the same technique was used on the Pentagon attack. a missle hit the building, then it was broadcast that a plane did it. the missile deeply penetrated many walls of the building. planes would have exploded within the first few walls there. also, a missile can do the low-level manuvers that we observe, but it is almost impossible to do those with a plane. Even George W. Bush, a former pilot, made that observation, in one of his usual public misstatements.

        2. lightweight aluminum frame hits reinforced steel and concrete, and aluminum wins? doubtful, but i’ll take a look.

          there’s a great photo of a B-17 that hit the Empire State Building, lost in the fog. i guess they don’t make them buildings like they used to…

  5. maybe the logic loop is thus: the government lies to us, all the time. they work for this government. they don’t like working for liars. therefore, the government doesn’t lie, and those that question their stories must be whacko conspiracists. something like that.

  6. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ”
    Upton Sinclair

  7. i should stay out of this. but you do know that there were thousands, perhaps millions, who saw the second plane hit the second tower? eyewitnesses? even i saw it on live tv.

  8. what you think is live TV can be time-delayed “live TV”. also, what impact angle did you see? there should be an official video we can review.

    1. there weren’t a million eyewitnesses. well, maybe on TV. i was one, and the TV feed i saw briefly showed a plane approaching, then a firey hit cutting through several floors. planes can’t do that, so something else hit the second tower. observe the narrow and deep penetration trail at the pentagon. planes can’t do that, either. missles can.

      your government lies to you, all the time. we are told those planes were flown by amateurs with little flight training. then there is WTC7, not hit by a plane, but collapses at near free-fall speed into its footprint from some fires. shoddy construction? in lower Manhatten? doubtful.

      the NIST study of WTC7 is a joke. think Warren report.

        1. why no pictures of missiles, only pictures of planes? let’s just say, conservatively, 500,000 people saw something hit the second tower, why no pictures of something other than a plane?

  9. If a missile hit that lightpole it would have detonated or maybe been deflected. No?


    I don’t even know what is going on this video. The cab driver has dementia and replicas of King Tut in his house. Hilarious. Somebody help me. What does the bridge have to do with 9/11 being an inside job by Dick Cheney?

  10. i said it may have been a missle, especially if the second impact cut through several floors.

    the message with the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building is planes, or at least this plane, do not significantly damage modern skyscrapers enough to collapse them into their footprint at near free-fall speeds, blowing steel I-beams out several hundred feet into the air, and leaving mostly fine-grained, pulverized concrete and molten steel in the rubble.

  11. here is a clip loop of a woman waving (in white box) from the impact hole of the North Tower. it suggests that the area was not too hot by then, for her to find her way there, and wave to the cameras. other parts of these floors were still on fire, burning mostly office furniture and supplies. black smoke suggests a low temperature fire.

Comments are closed.