Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Sutton's avatar

I was at a very well-attended talk by David Ray Griffin in late 2002 maybe early 2003, in Vermont, when he was on tour for his book ‘A New Pearl Harbor.’ His case was so solid against the NIST-government narrative I could not have imagined that 22 years later a significant percentage of the US population would steadfastly refuse to acknowledge evidence that that narrative is, and always has been, false. Your post is well presented and I have an urge to share it with a few people who are steadfast in their faith in ‘the experts’ the New York Times about 9/11 and the WTC collapses. Our friendship collapsed itself after the C-19 years, so it’s probably better to resist the urge.

Expand full comment
Doug Nierman's avatar

Seeing the collapse of WTC7 is like footage of someone being shot. It seems self evident. How could someone see anything different? Your detailed examination of NIST & Hulsey’s adds layers of irrefutability. It’s a great piece to offer those willing to look at 9/11. It’s obvious irrefutability further clarifies there are extra evidentiary elements that keep people from seeing.

Expand full comment
25 more comments...

No posts