use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~1 user here now
Present and discuss evidence showing that the US Government's version of the events of 9/11 cannot possibly be true. Submissions or comments supporting the official version, including links to sites purporting to "debunk" the 9/11 Truth Movement (depending on context), are considered off-topic here.
BOLLYN BOOKS:
by Christopher Bollyn
● Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed The World [PDF]
● Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World (Abridged)
● Solving 9-11: The Original Articles
● The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East
● More on Issuu
CORBETT REPORT:
by James Corbett
● 9/11 Trillions: Follow the Money
● 9/11 War Games
● 9/11 Whistleblowers
DOCUMENTARIES:
● 9/11 A New Standard For Deception by Kevin Ryan
● 9/11 From Cheney to Mossad
● 9/11: Intercepted
● 9/11 Ripple Effect
● Christopher Bollyn: Making Sense of the War on Terror by Ed Mays
● Loose Change (2nd Edition)
● The 9/11 Masterpiece Christopher Bollyn
● The New American Century
● The New Pearl Harbor Full 9/11 Documentary
● War Is Always By Deception
● Zero An Investigation Into 9-11
RESOURCES:
AE911Truth/UAF WTC7 Study Data:
● AE911Truth.org/wtc7
● ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
The 911Dataset Project:
● Archive.org : 911DataSets.org
● WebCitation.org : 911DataSets.org
Other:
● Truther Top 20 Counter Points To The Official 9/11 Story
Ask to co-mod or earn an invite.
CSS and banner images by /u/JasonCarswell
Was 911 An Inside Job? - University of Kent, UK
submitted 3 years ago by LarrySwinger2 from youtube.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–]LarrySwinger2[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 3 years ago (1 child)
Part 2 can be found here. This one is a bit of a waste of time. The speaker is a lawyer who isn't qualified to go into details about the subject, and just uses a lot of rhetoric without proving anything. It's rather curious: couldn't they find any scientists who are willing to defend the official story? Of course not; they'd put their careers in jeopardy. Just think of all the bounties put on defending the official story that have never been claimed.
Part 3, on the other hand, is one that I do recommend. It's a free-form debate, and the lawyer is actually better in this part than in his presentation. It's too bad that he has to start off with playing the antisemitism card, though.
[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 3 years ago (0 children)
These are helpful.
What's your review on Part 1?
view the rest of the comments →
[–]LarrySwinger2[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - (1 child)
[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - (0 children)