GW ,I've had it on my blog for a few days: http://jultra.blogspot.com/

Not that it matters, glad you've got it here!

Very refreshing to see actual intelligent debate on TV.

Now if only the Mail on Sunday person could be brought to see this through and put up the sound, rational rebuttal he obviously must have up his sleeve if thinks he can outright dismiss us...

I'm not holding my breath.

And the contention that it's bestowed upon us to completely prove our theory is absurd, considering that the very fact that their theory does not hold any water combined with the obvious motive and deliberate coverup pretty much indict them beyond any reasonable doubt.

Recently the Dutch program Zembla, http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060911.asf looked at some of the things Griffin is saying like there was no evidence of the Boeing hitting the Pentagon and that Hanjour wasn't skilled enough to perform the required air maneuver. They find both of these ideas of Griffin WRONG. There was plenty of evidence of a Boeing hit and the skill level required wasn't as much as Griffin thinks. View the video and see for yourself.

I've just watched the entire Zembla film. It comes in strong support of a LIHOP scenario, but it refutes the claim that a Boeing could not have hit the pentagon. (It doesn't prove that a 757 DID hit, or which 757, but refutes the claims that it is impossible pretty convincingly.)

It also opposes the CD theori of WTC1&2 (not 7), but IMHO gives no conclusive evidence to disprove the theory.

That was a fairly decent documentary...thanks for the link...

While Griffin might be wrong about there being no 757, it is not suffice to say he's wrong about it not being piloted by Hani Hanjour.
Zembla's little debunking of that is rather pathetic.
All they do is get in a simulator, have the flight already near the Pentagon (in which the flight actually went almost passed W Virgina before turning around), and then not even bother crashing it into the bottom floor of the Pentagon, as it was on 9/11.
The flight was literally only a few feet off the ground as it went into the Pentagon. That is extremely hard to do at that speed. At no point did they do it in their test on the simulator, in fact one part they show them going into the ground before reaching the pentagon.
They just make the argument that hitting the Pentagon at all isn't hard (after you're in the vicinity no less). That's extremely generic and misleading, given what actually happened.

While we're at it, the wtc..

Jowenko, albeit a demolition expert, might know a thing or two, he fails to see that the demolition of the WTC could've simply been done with an unconventional method with unconventional explosives. He is assuming that black-op groups would use only the same type of stuff he is familiar with. This has a lot of implications, such as cabling (no need if it's radio controlled), survivability (no concern if they're in protected cases), and amount (they could've used less explosive that is advanced that is much more powerful than using more conventional explosive).....
He also is not aware that there were reported explosions in the basement. They could easily compromise the building from the bottom, to get the top to act as though it was only collapsing from there. That is simply done by removing the strength of the core, pulling on the top to initiate collapse, and then have explosives raze the building preceding the collapse zone as it was falling.

The film does a very amateur attempt at saying that the MIHOP is absurd just off of these two things they provide to 'debunk' it.
At least they lend it into LIHOP....but we all know LIHOP is absurd for you wouldn't leave it in the hands of jihadists to initiate your agenda.

Good points about the flight simulation and the demolition experts opinions on WTC1 & WTC2. His surprise at WTC7 may make him rethink his views on the other buildings. The notion about explosives being set off by the planes fires can be countered by the use of thermite, thermate and super-thermite which would not have been ignited. However, the evidence that a Boeing hit the Pentagon was very convincing and this is a big problem for the no-plane or better no-Boeing theories.

According to Alex Jones, Chavez specifically mentioned WTC7 in his speech but the American media cropped it.

yeah, i noticed that too.

This Chavez thing is huge.

The left gatekeepers can no longer call us "nuts".

One editorial tried to attack Griffin, but couldn't find much of a scandal about him, so they blamed him for selling 100000 books to provide 'funding for the truth movement'. This is so ridiculous when one compares it to the billions the neocons have allocated for the DHS, for the wars, and the many times they played the '9/11 card' to impose their own will.

GW, have you granted us permission to support the lynchpin of our movement yet?

Professor Jones:  HardEvidence@gmail.com

BYU: physics_office@byu.edu