Wednesday, December 31, 7000

Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.

By JM Talboo and Steve W. people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.

In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth debunkers.


The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help.

“I think it’s implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many didn’t have a high school education, could have carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States”
Former Sen. Bob Graham on 60-Minutes 

We might be wrong about where we suspect this all leads, but the "debunkers" are wrong when many essentially argue that it's acceptable for 70% of 9/11 family members questions to have never been answered by the 9/11 Commission. So of course, most have no qualms about promises made to 9/11 family members being broken by the Commission to investigate all whistleblower claims, which a substantial amount of the public find highly-suspicious at minimum, with many regarding the evidence as suggestive of complicity to varied degrees.

The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.

[On the left side (above) is a video of WTC 7 collapsing. On the right side is a video of a controlled demolition.]

So it stands to reason, that these ilk feel the lack of air defense story is above scrutiny to the point that secrecy and rewards are warranted. So what if this tale consists of 3, or some contend 4, mutually contradictory versions of events and admitted lies. It makes perfect sense that the top officials from NORAD and the FAA received promotions, as opposed to having to provide documents with data that would prove that the jet fighters were acceptably responsive, given the past response time averages.

Unsurprisingly, the duh-bunkturds hate even the best of the "Loose Change" films, but loose ends are no biggie.

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So, if 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that have attributes like these? 

It is therefore the purpose of this website to rebut the hollow claims of the so-called 911 truth "debunkers" and clarify what is known about the attacks for the benefit of those following the debate and also for the largely uninformed public. This site now features 9/11 truth related and not-so-related content. So please utilize our search feature (found also on the sidebar) to find a massive treasure trove of well-researched info on nearly every issue in the realm of 9/11 truth debate. 

Sorry that we don't allow any comments, but if you wish to communicate any thoughts you have about the published material please contact us here. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.


National Security Notice via Washington's Blog:

We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government. We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement. We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. [Four foreign countries also represented here at DTD]. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect. We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting. The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans. Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Why 'Demolition Deniers' Are Obsessed with the Plasco Building Demolition in Tehran

Even more important to demolition deniers than their newfound ability to claim one fire-induced collapse is the severe damage that would be done to their ideology if they had to accept the Plasco incident as a demolition.

By Ted Walter
On January 19, 2018, the one-year anniversary of the Plasco Building collapse in Iran, the website Gizmodo published an article by structural engineer Alex Weinberg titled “Why 9/11 Truthers Are Obsessed with the Plasco High-Rise Fire in Tehran.”
Plasco book no spine 200px
The focus of Weinberg’s article was the response of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) — the organization I work for — to the destruction of Tehran’s first-ever, iconic high-rise. At around 8:00 AM that day, the upper floors caught fire and burned for a little over three hours before a series of explosions rocked the building. The structure then completely collapsed to the ground, tragically claiming the lives of sixteen firefighters and six civilians.
The day after, we issued a statement, based on our analysis of the available videos, urging the Iranian government to investigate the possible use of explosives. One month later, after compiling more evidence, we published a report recommending that investigators consider explosives and incendiaries as the primary hypothesis for the building’s destruction. Our purpose was “to help the people of Iran in their effort to understand the cause of this tragic incident.”
Fast-forward one year later to the first anniversary. Within an hour after we released a video to bring attention to the issue (the video is available in English and Farsi), Alex Weinberg’s hate-fest of an article was published. I use the term “hate-fest” not only because the article is unabashedly derisive and dehumanizing, but because Weinberg openly admitted his disdain of “9/11 conspiracy theorists” in an article he penned on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, in which he wrote:
“To them, airplane collisions could not have toppled the Twin Towers, and something else must have led to the unprecedented destruction. Let me just say that I take deep offense at this idea. Conservative commentators often deride 9/11 conspiracy theorists for their lack of patriotism or compassion or whatever, but I think this is a far too easy way of thinking. Instead, I hate them for the much more substantiative sin of being stupid and loud. To me — a structural engineering student and longtime supporter of skyscrapers and skyscraper-related causes — they might as well be protesting against evolutionary theory or the abstract notion of time.”
Weinberg’s stated reason for hating “9/11 conspiracy theorists” is odd when you consider that many of the architects and engineers who’ve signed the petition of AE911Truth did so because they view the official account of the World Trade Center’s destruction as an affront to their profession. Three skyscrapers collapsed completely and catastrophically in one day, killing more than 2,500 people, ostensibly under design load conditions (that is, conditions the structures were designed to withstand). Proving that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 did not actually collapse from fire would therefore absolve the building professions of negligence, or at least that is how some members of these professions see it. In reality, it seems that Weinberg’s hatred is borne out of something much deeper than his love of skyscrapers.
Whatever that something may be, his 2007 rant reveals unambiguously that he is deeply invested in the official account of the World Trade Center’s destruction, so much so that it has become his ideology and he despises those who question it. How ironic, then, that in his Gizmodo piece he would call AE911Truth the only group of Americans “ideologically invested” enough to pay attention to the Plasco Building incident.
The central thesis of Weinberg’s attempted psychoanalysis is that because AE911Truth “has spent the past decade convincing a brain trust of YouTube commenters that tall buildings simply cannot collapse due to fire,” “rather than accepting the Plasco Building as a thundering rebuttal to their theories, AE911Truth concluded that Plasco was also a controlled demolition.”
First, let’s get one thing straight: AE911Truth has never argued that tall buildings “cannot” collapse due to fire, nor have any of the architects, engineers, or scientists affiliated with AE911Truth, as far as I’m aware. The undisputed fact we cite is that, putting aside the issue of the World Trade Center’s destruction (and now the Plasco incident), no steel-framed high-rise has ever completely collapsed due to fire.
Occasionally, some architects and engineers will make the bolder statement that steel-framed high-rises do not collapse due to fire. Scott Grainger, a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, states as much in our signature documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out. But that is not the same as saying that tall buildings cannot collapse due to fire.
More to the point, it is not our central argument, or even a critical argument, that no steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed from fire. The purpose of looking at the performance of steel-framed high-rises in large fires is to put the World Trade Center collapses in their proper context as highly anomalous events. If a steel-framed high-rise one day does succumb to fire, it will not change the fact that the fire-induced collapse of a steel-framed high-rise is an exceedingly rare and improbable occurrence. Nor would the instance of a single steel-framed high-rise collapsing from fire make the slightest dent in the overwhelming scientific evidence that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition.
In other words, had the Plasco Building actually collapsed due to fire, it would not have been the “thundering rebuttal to [our] theories” that Alex Weinberg fantasizes. When we woke up on the morning of January 19, 2017, to the news that a burning high-rise in Iran had collapsed, we were not expecting to watch videos of the event and see signs that made it appear to be a controlled demolition. We started watching with curiosity, assuming that we were about to see footage of a fire-induced collapse, as reported. If it had turned out to be a fire-induced collapse, we would’ve simply updated our materials to reflect the fact that one steel-framed high-rise in the long history of high-rise construction had collapsed from fire.
But for people like Alex Weinberg, for whom I’m compelled to coin the term “demolition denier,” the question of the Plasco Building’s destruction means much more. Since no steel-framed high-rise has ever completely collapsed due to fire (putting aside the events of 9/11), the Plasco incident was a golden opportunity for Weinberg and his fellow deniers to say, “LOOK!!! Steel-framed high-rises cancollapse due to fire!”
Weinberg acknowledges this very problem on his own: “Prior to Plasco, it was difficult to produce counterexamples that would immediately disprove these truther axioms because out-of-control high-rise fires just don’t happen very often.” Sorry, Alex. It turns out you’ll have to keep waiting for your first counterexample — when the ratio will then be one-collapse-to-however-many-hundreds-of-fires instead of zero-to-however-many-hundreds.
Maleki Quote 768
By the way, the Plasco fire was not “out-of-control” by the time of the building’s collapse, and I mean that in the most literal sense. According to fire department spokesman Jalal Maleki, “The extinguishing process was going pretty well. We were at the end of our job. Everything was under control, then all of a sudden, and unexpectedly, two or three major explosions took place in the upper floors at intervals of two or three minutes.” [Emphasis added.] If you want to know what an “out-of-control” fire looks like, take a look at this one, which happened in Mashhad, Iran, six months before the Plasco incident.
Fire extinguished 768
But back to Weinberg’s conundrum: Even more important to demolition deniers than their newfound ability to claim one fire-induced collapse is the severe damage that would be done to their ideology if they had to accept the Plasco incident as a demolition.
Perhaps a few demolition deniers saw the videos of explosions shooting out of the Plasco Building and thought to themselves, “Hmm, maybe this one was demolished.” But, if they did, they kept quiet and decided not to go against the orthodoxy being written by people like the Pope of Demolition Denial, Mick West. The very same day we released our initial statement, West published the article “AE911Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job.” A rational person would be able to separate the World Trade Center from the Plasco incident, but apparently demolition deniers saw Plasco as a threat to their ideology and couldn’t entertain the possibility that it was a controlled demolition.
As Weinberg observes, “The debates over Plasco’s collapse have raged in the same hundred page forum threads and YouTube comment sections as the 9/11 arguments of yesteryear.” Weinberg is mostly referring to the International Skeptics Forum, where “giddy debunkers,” as he calls them, go to spew the same vitriol he did on Gizmodo and where they occasionally debate the few 9/11 researchers brave enough and giving enough of their time to argue with them. Whereas demolition deniers have filled out “hundred page forum threads” debating the Plasco incident, most 9/11 Truth activists have not given it much time. Indeed, it is demolition deniers — not “9/11 truthers” — who are obsessed with the Plasco Building demolition.
And yet despite all the “hundred page forum threads” that Weinberg could have drawn from, his argument is tellingly light on facts. Why include only a single video of the Plasco collapse when there are so many others available, like this one or this one? Or, if he needed to keep it to one video, why not this one, which is a compilation of several videos? Was he afraid that if he were to show these videos to a larger audience, one outside of his “church,” that some readers would see the incident for what it was?
Plasco Demo collage 768
And why did he feel the need to exaggerate the severity of the fire? The fire “spread quickly.” It was “nearly unreachable.” The flames “finally overwhelmed the structure.” Actually, the fire was limited to the building’s upper floors and was thought by the fire department to have been extinguished when, as mentioned above, “two or three major explosions took place. . . .” Weinberg omits these critical facts. As a result, his less-informed readers will have no idea that Plasco was actually a fire and explosion incident, which is how it was treated by the media and politicians in Iran.
Weinberg predictably trots out an expert to add a semblance of scientific credibility to his pseudo-scientific sermon. But his expert exaggerates the extent to which steel loses strength when heated to given temperatures, saying: “At 450 degrees [Celsius] or so, you get basically a 50 percent drop in strength and stiffness, and that’s very significant.” In fact, as we cited in our report, structural steel “loses about half its strength at 650°C” (Eagar and Musso: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?). Weinberg exaggerates the matter still further by suggesting that well-ventilated office fires can reach an obscenely high 1,100°C, which — although technically possible — is exceedingly difficult to achieve and clearly not what occurred in the Plasco Building, given the fire’s lack of intensity documented in videos.
The matter of design redundancy — i.e., the ability of a structure to handle multiple times the load it is carrying so that isolated local failures will not cause the entire structure to collapse like a house of cards — is conspicuously absent from Weinberg’s article. As we explain in our report, “[V]irtually every column would need to be heated to 650°C at the same time, losing 50% of its strength, to present the risk of a building-wide failure. This would be very difficult to accomplish even in a raging fire.”
Moreover, Weinberg’s attacks on the report are so unfounded that it’s clear he either didn’t read it carefully or he was deliberately intending to misrepresent it to his readers.
For example, he complains, “Most of the links in footnotes of the paper point to YouTube videos and the organization’s own PDF documents.” The sixteen YouTube links he is referring to are straightforward videos of the collapse or of the debris pile (Weinberg thinks it’s better to show only one video) — or they are interviews with firefighters featuring English subtitles, which were translated and provided to us by an Iranian living in Iran. The nine PDF links he refers to, with the exception of one English-language news article, are clearly-sourced Farsi news reports, which our Iranian contact also translated to English for us and which contain a variety of important evidence. In other words, the very thing Weinberg holds up to demonstrate our purported lack of rigorous research is actually a demonstration of the kind of rigor that Weinberg either willfully avoided or never even thought to attempt.
The fact of the matter is that Weinberg doesn’t care about finding the truth. The only reason the Plasco tragedy seems to mean anything to him is that it’s a threat to his demolition denial, and so he must turn it around and attempt to use it as ammunition against those who challenge his belief system. He pays lip service to the victims of the tragedy, writing, “Tens of thousands of citizens publicly mourned the firefighters when they were laid to rest,” but it’s just that, lip service.
First Responder funeral 768
If Weinberg actually cared, he would have interviewed someone from Iran, maybe a witness, maybe a victim’s family member, maybe the person who provided our video and article translations, or maybe the Iranian (also based in Iran) who volunteered, unsolicited, to translate the report into Farsi. Maybe he would have learned from these interviews that a large percentage of Iranians believe that the Plasco Building was demolished — a majority of them, according to our contacts. Maybe he would have found that this is also the position of Iran’s most popular reformist news site, Amad News, which has over one million followers on Telegram and which published both the English and Farsi versions of our report.
Of course, he didn’t do all of this because the ideology of demolition denial, to which he subscribes so fervently, is one founded on arrogance, self-delusion, and above all, a fear of any information that might undermine the ideology. The result is a callous lack of genuine interest in justice for the victims of mass murder — first the one on September 11, 2001, and now the one on January 19, 2017.
Demolition denial wouldn’t matter so much if it were espoused only by a small group of devout followers. But the reason it’s so damaging to society is that it’s also adhered to by many in the Western media. They’re not regular “churchgoers” (i.e., they don’t visit the International Skeptics Forum), but they are still firm believers. They mock the architects, engineers, and scientists who expose the falsity of their dogma and they give over-zealous preachers like Weinberg a pulpit to reinforce the faith.
The disastrous effect of their demolition denial has been to prevent justice for the victims of 9/11 for more than sixteen years while continuing to prop up the endless “War on Terror.” Now demolition denial has reared its ugly head again, causing the mass murder of twenty-two people in the Plasco Building demolition to go almost entirely unnoticed outside of Iran.

Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). In 2015, he authored AE911Truth’s Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7, and in 2016, he authored AE911Truth’s World Trade Center Physics: Why Constant Acceleration Disproves Progressive Collapse. He holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.


Debunking Ryan Dawson


Recently Ry's been referencing the destruction of the Plasco building in Tehran and using that incident to back his contention that fire can demolish steel framed buildings. However, once again, there is more to the story than Ry's simple interpretation as videos of what happened in Iran raise alarm bells. Apart from the explosive nature of the collapse, with material being ejected laterally well below the collapse points, the clean up site featured molten metal/steel being removed, which is a red flag for incendiaries.

Plasco Building Collapse: Molten Metal Compilation [Video]


What happened here is very suspicious, and doesn't seem like the result of a "collapse" or that it was the result of a conventional office fire. To that point, see this recent 20 page report by The destruction of this building in Iran looks like it was made to "debunk" the 911 forensic evidence. Regardless of whether there was motive behind what happened to the Plasco building, the melted steel in the pile points to other non-conventional factors at work that caused the building's demise. 

Even if one contends that this building was a natural collapse, there are some important differences to the collapses on 9/11 to consider that comments posted here noted...

Fred Dietz1 day ago I’m going to say “inadequate sheer studs”, as there was already an Iranian architect on Press TV saying that Plasco Building (Iran’s first high-rise) was never built inline with “national construction regulations”. But that’s also a world of difference from WTC 7, which had over 3,800 sheer studs that were inspected every year by NYC (and this was revealed in a 2012 FOIA). NIST outright lied in their report and said WTC 7 didn’t have any sheer studs.

T Wayland5 hours ago Fred Dietz in another video i saw about this they were talking about how the building had needed repairs for years.

Ariane Kosmolowski1 day ago This is not a symmetrical collapse as seen in WTC7. Different parts of the building collapse one after another. It also takes a while, and this is only 17 stories.

For an-depth examination of the larger issue here, see:

Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC:

MUELLER INDICTS RUSSIANS WITHOUT PROVIDING LINK TO TRUMP OR VOTES CHANGING DURING ELECTION - Scott Adams Talks About How Deep State Minions Are Spinning Indictment Of 13 Russians - Mark Levin: Mueller Indicts 13 Russian Trolls - Is Obama Going to be Indicted for Interfering in Israel's Election? - Rush Limbaugh: Robert Mueller indicts several Russians for disparaging Hillary on the internet

"By in or around May 2014, the organization's strategy included interfering with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with the stated goal of "spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general," the indictment said.

H. A. Goodman: Hillary Clinton is unelectable. Only Bernie Sanders can win. 3 min

Russia didn't materially influence the outcome of the US election. Any impact was miniscule. No evidence was offered by Mueller to show collusion between Trump and agents of Russia to sway the outcome of the election.

The reality is that HUGE sections of the (very popular) right leaning US alternative media favoured Trump over Clinton and pointed out Hillary's (prosecutable) corruption. The alt media in general, including sections on the left side of politics, outright EXPOSED the DNC rigging of the Democrat primary race that sunk her chances with people who voted for Bernie Sanders. EVERYONE was aware of Hillary's email scandal in which classified material was sent unsecured in a deliberate way (rather than this being simply "criminally negligent" - she ordered her staff to remove classification tags and send unsecure). The email scandal was LEAKED information and NOT a Russian hack. If there was any proof of Russian involvement the NSA or FBI would have the data. Russia was not responsible for any of this.

Trump on the other hand was a celebrity in his own right, and spoke to people who had lost their jobs in the economic downturn and those that were still struggling after Obama's "jobless recovery". To quote from Bill Clinton's campaign in the 90s ... "It's the economy stupid."

Any Russian media influence in the election was negligible. The Mueller probe is simply a strategy to undermine Trump's legitimacy and to vilify Russia as an enemy of the Military Industrial Complex. Trump, regardless of his present foreign policy faults, wanted to forge better relations with Putin, while the neocons, of which Hillary is one, didn't.



Top Comments at You Tube:

What's Up? 2 hours ago (edited)

He didn't collude,. These Russians started in 2014 well before Trump announced his run for office. Social media ran some ads. The money hungry media accepted there money. The media should be up for collusion. They did not vet the advertisers thoroughly. Kerry allowed these people into the U.S. What's up with that? The only collusion is with Hillary and Uranium l to the Russians.
They Trick Mike Flynn, FBI was wiretap Flynn phone and they ask him is he had any contact with Russian. of coarse he lied.. He was talking to the russian ambassador.. That was Mike Flynn job... Every one in the white house probably talked to the russian ambassador..

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 18th, 2018.]

Scott Adams Talks About How Deep State Minions Are Spinning Indictment Of 13 Russians

Mark Levin: Mueller Indicts 13 Russian Trolls - Is Obama Going to be Indicted for Interfering in Israel's Election?

Fmr. Shiloh, Israel mayor: Obama administration interfered in 2015 Israeli election

Ava Marie Maffia
Speaking of interference, didn't Obama go to England just before the vote on Brexit and ask them not to exit? I believe Obama was in France in the past few weeks to try to influence that election. I believe he was in England in the past few weeks to try to influence that election, and supported the extreme far left guy (forgot his name)...

Obama Is the Putin of the Israeli Election

Did Obama 'meddling' spur 'Brexit'?


Rush Limbaugh: Robert Mueller indicts several Russians for disparaging Hillary on the internet

Alex Jones Reads Swamp Monster Mueller’s Shockingly Lame FULL Indictment Live On Air

Mueller and His Sad Handmaid Rosenstein Dump This Pathetic 37-Page Indictment Against Evil Russians

A Reaction to Robert Muellers 13 Russian Indictments (AKA Underwhelming Farce)

Bob Mueller Indicts 13 Russians Over Facebook and Twitter Posts in Election Investigation (REACTION)

Mueller Reveals His Hand: Royal Russian Nothingburger 😂

100% Proof! Russian Collusion was a Hoax Designed to Impeach Trump and Divert Attention from Internal Email Leak & Clinton Criminal Activities:

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Cruz Demeanor In Court, MKULTRA? 'Voices' Prompted Massacre - 3 Witnesses: Multiple Shooters, 'Shots Were Coming from Other Part of Building' from Where She Was WALKING with Cruz - 'I Was Surprised You Weren't the One Who Did It' 'Obviously, Definitely, Another Shooter Involved' - ‘Active Shooter Drill’ Hours Before, Secret Service Changed Safety Protocol Weeks Before

Cruz Demeanor In Court, MKULTRA? 'Voices' Prompted Massacre - 3 Witnesses: Multiple Shooters, 'Shots Were Coming from Other Part of Building' from Where She Was WALKING with Cruz - 'I Was Surprised You Weren't the One Who Did It' 'Obviously, Definitely, Another Shooter Involved' - ‘Active Shooter Drill’ Hours Before, Secret Service Changed Safety Protocol Weeks Before

Two Key Things That Got Overlooked About Project MK Ultra:

Florida Shooting ‘Suspect' Cruz Says Voices In His Head Told Him To Carry Out The Massacre - MKULTRA?:
The shooter appears to have a blank, mindless expression. He looks like a mindless drone, however his eyes are open and does appear to be "awake".
Adam Lanza
The shooter appears to have a blank, mindless expression. He looks like a mindless drone, however his eyes are open and does appear to be “awake”.
Now that I’ve put all this mind control information together, I’m almost positive that some of the “subjects” are triggered to do school shootings and the like.

MK-Ultra: Then and Now – A thorough analysis of mind control:


James Holmes, and how the CIA hid their MKULTRA mind-control program by Jon Rappoport:

The Open MKULTRA Drugging of James Holmes:

“There Were Definitely Two Shooters”, Florida Eyewitness Of Mass Killing Reports

Warning! Graphic Content: Florida HS Survivors Speak Out, More Than One Shooter!

Parkland shooting: School Ran ‘Active Shooter Drill’ Hours Before Florida Shooting

School Ran ‘Active Shooter Drill’ Hours Before Florida FALSE FLAG Shooting. Read the following ..

Five Major Revelations the Mainstream Media is Ignoring About the Florida Shooting..

Parkland Florida High School Shooting: Three Students have testified there were multiple shooters, yet no mainstream media outlet has picked it up. - "Three students have testified on camera saying there were at least two shooters.

"One eyewitness even cla
ims there were three shooters."

Secret Service Changed Safety Protocol A Few Weeks Before Florida School Shooting


Austin Plane Crash - Where have we seen this before?

On the Prison Planet forum, we've been following this Austin plane crash since the story broke, and and we came across this interesting clip. According to eyewitness Megan Riley, firetrucks and Hazmat teams "just happened to be" in the area when the plane crashed.

On its own, not really suspicious. But when you consider that this sort of thing happens time and time again, it's a little suspicious. On the morning of 9/11, FEMA was in New York City preparing for a terrorist attack drill. On 7/7 there were drills eerily like the attacks taking place as the attacks happened, and according to Daniel Obachike, a passenger on the bus, there were police waiting in Tavistock square when the bus blew upWitnesses to the 1995 Oklahoma City Boming stated on record that that they had seen Bomb Squad officials in the area before the blastEven with natural disasters we see these coincidences.

Were these firefighters and Hazmat teams preparing for some kind of drill? If so then that's pretty strong evidence that this was a staged event. Either way this is clearly a psyop and the media is undoubtedly going to use this to demonize truthers and activists.
Full Show - Evidence Unraveling A Giant False Flag At Florida High School Shooting


4chan trolled the ADL and the mainstream media into believing that school shooter Nikolas Cruz was part of the Republic of Florida militia. - Another Mass Shooting and Again this Certain Thing Will Be Ignored [Anti-Depressants]:

The Politics of Nikolas Cruz Shooter and Gun Free Cuck Zones - The Truth About The Florida School Shooting and Nikolas Cruz:

4chan trolled the ADL and the mainstream media into believing that school shooter Nikolas Cruz was part of the Republic of Florida militia. - Another Mass Shooting and Again this Certain Thing Will Be Ignored [Anti-Depressants]

Editor's Note: The reports mentioned in the first video here that Cruz was a registered Democrat are incorrect. I'm siding with the oft-debunked debunkers over at Snopes... on this one.

Another Mass Shooting and Again this Certain Thing Will Be Ignored [Anti-Depressants]

In the 1980s we had all the same guns as today and yet the first and only school shooting was in 1989 and it was by an adult not a student, which resulted in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. From 1990 to 1999 there were 24 mass shootings with 5 School Shootings. Fat forward, in just the past 7years and two months there have been 44 mass shootings



[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 18th, 2018.]

4chan trolled the ADL and the mainstream media into believing that school shooter Nikolas Cruz was part of the Republic of Florida militia. - Another Mass Shooting and Again this Certain Thing Will Be Ignored [Anti-Depressants] 


The Politics of Nikolas Cruz Shooter and Gun Free Cuck Zones - The Truth About The Florida School Shooting and Nikolas Cruz: