82 votes

It's Time to Put This 9/11 Conspiracy Thing to Rest Once and For All

There is a lot of hearsay and folklore surrounding this event which may or may not be true. So we're going to need to sift through some news-clips, firsthand testimony and whatever else that can provide credible information on this important topic. There comes a point that you learn too much and you can't revert back to ignorance. In a way it's very much like when you first realized that Santa Claus is really a fiction. At that point there is really no amount of logic that can resurrect your belief in Santa again. So when did you quit believing in Santa Claus?

As kids we believed in Santa Claus. Our parents were the gatekeepers of information and, though benign, our environment during that formative time was a controlled one. We were taught to believe in Santa Claus. Initially we accepted all the information that we received at face value. However, as time progressed, we gained bits and pieces of information that led to a cognitive dissonance which, in turn, led us to question our image of Santa Claus. These “bits and pieces” led to questions such as “How could Santa Claus fit through my chimney” or “How does Santa Claus leave gifts in millions of homes during a single night”? Armed with all these bits and pieces of information, we began to get a different picture that caused all the previous illogic that we had learned to come crashing down. This finally led to an epiphany that Santa Claus really isn’t anything like what we had first thought!

There are other things in life that we have always taken for granted as “fact” that later prove to be only an illusion as well. It’s only a matter of getting more information. As in the case of the Santa Claus myth, it is only a matter of time as new evidence unfolds that we are forced to rethink our view on what the truth is.

I WANT TO TRY AN EXPERIMENT HERE:

Please watch this first video linked here. It’s only one minute. You’ve read this far into my article so please take just one small minute and watch this first video. You’re going to be impressed. This is a local news video of a witness named Kenny Johannemann testifying to explosions that happened in the basement of one of the WTC towers. While he is testifying you still see both of the twin towers burning behind him in the background. This was live footage and it's only ONE minute long. Go ahead and watch this here:


http://youtu.be/yEuzU3LMgCA

The explosions in the basement were separate independent events which had nothing to do with where the airplanes hit some 80 to 100 floors above. Those explosions were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling the tower.

You say, “wait, this doesn’t fit anything I know, maybe there is some other explanation for those explosions in the basement.” True. This is just one piece of evidence, but it’s a piece of evidence that raises a lot of questions. You didn’t see this on TV either. Does that prick your interest?

The government has promoted a “theory” that maybe the fuel from the jet trickled down the elevator shafts into the basement and subsequently exploded. Could this be? Let’s continue and look at other evidence. Barry Jennings was another witness that got stuck in Building Seven during 9/11. Remember, Building Seven was NEVER hit by a jet. In Barry's case an explosion blew out a stair well below him leaving him hanging and stranded for hours until the fire department got him out. Both the twin towers went down during the time he was stranded. Building Seven, a tall building in it’s own right (47 stories tall), came down at around 5:20 (later that day). Fortunately, he was saved. Watch his account here:


http://youtu.be/PbbZE7c3a8Q

Again, the explosions he talked about were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling down this building. You say, “Hold On! Building Seven housed the FBI and the CIA offices, so who would have access to set up explosives in there? There has got to be another explanation.” True, but realize that building seven was never hit by a jet. Still, this is just one more piece of evidence which raises even more questions. Again, you didn't see Barry’s testimony on TV.

William Rodriguez, head janitor at the towers, was meeting with some people in basement level #1 (the highest of several basement levels) when an explosion from below pushed everyone upwards, causing ceiling tiles to fall and walls to crack. Just as William started to express to others what he thought that explosion might be, an airplane hit and shook the building from above. His story begins at 9:31 here:


http://youtu.be/KWXTk5aNAAs

Now, let’s look for other different kinds of evidence. Steve Jones, a physicist, obtained WTC dust samples from the collapsed WTC towers from people who lived nearby. He analyzed it and found that the dust contained residues of explosives. Steve Jones first became famous when he became known as the “voice of reason” during the Pons / Fleischman "Cold Fusion" debacle of 1989, if you remember that. For a Nuclear Physicist, like Steve Jones, analyzing dust samples for explosive residues is a relatively simple task. It may be similar to asking a PhD mathematician to do arithmetic. He reported his detailed findings here in Boston:


http://youtu.be/xvRtJO5cNJs

In this lecture, you recall, he offered other scientists to take parts of his samples in order to analyze the "red chips" that he had recently discovered. That was December 2007. These specks have now, in fact, been confirmed to be unexploded “nanostructured super-thermite” particles. That confirmation is not just a smoking gun, it is the gun. See the article here:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superth...

The actual scientific paper in its entirety can be found here in PDF form. Be sure to click the “download” link here:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?T...

If you get into the actual paper, you learn that the explosives may actually have been sprayed into position like paint or insulation!

Steve Jones’ findings may not fit the stories that you have heard in the news but it does lend support to what Johannemann, Jennings and Rodriguez testified that they saw. You say, “The news media isn’t going to shoot itself in the foot by making something up.” So how do we rectify all the contradictions that we were told in the news? Could Steve Jones and these witnesses be glory-seeking kooks trying to make a name for themselves?

Well, then take a look at this:

Here is a BBC report announcing the collapse of the Solomon Building (the official name for Building Seven). There is only one problem. The reporter standing at the scene and announcing this didn't realize that, in fact, you could still see Building Seven still standing off to the right. It actually collapsed within about 20 minutes after that live report. Watch it here:


http://youtu.be/JlL6ewlW6oc

How did the BBC know in advance that Building Seven would collapse? The fact that it was announced in advance is strong support that the flow of information on this tragedy was being controlled (but in a more sinister way than how information about Santa Claus was controlled in your life).

Were the people at the BBC the only people privy to this information? Probably not. Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder of Building Seven. In a 2002 PBS documentary he talked about how he discussed the Building Seven situation with the fire department and he suggested to the fire department that they pull it. He then stated that the fire department made that decision to "pull it" and then, as he put it, "we watched the building collapse". Well, there is one problem with his testimony that you may want to consider. It takes at least a week to rig a building like that with explosives before you pull it. So are buildings constructed with built-in explosives just in case they need to be blown up in a hurry? Building Seven went down that same day. Whoops! Watch Larry's testimony from the PBS documentary here in this short clip:


http://youtu.be/C3E-26oVIIs

Incidentally, luckily for Larry, he insured his property in the nick of time just six months before September 11th! It was a sweet deal. So who orchestrated this terrorist event anyway? They had to get past the FBI and CIA and prepare at least three buildings for demolition as well as direct the activities of men with box cutters (if they even existed). It’s clear from the evidence presented here so far that at least some of the media was in on this. What else could explain the BBC blunder? They had to control the information to those of us who might not like the idea that a few thousand people had to be killed in order to fulfill some kind of agenda. So what’s in it for these people that were “in the know?”

Aaron Russo was a famous movie producer (Remember “The Rose” and "Trading Places" starring Eddie Murphy?) who became best friends with one of the Rockefeller family members. This is the same Rockefeller family that is a large shareholder of the Federal Reserve Bank -- a private company that loans money to our government and contributes to our huge national debt. You see the name “Federal Reserve” at the top the dollar bill. Yes, we're talking about that Bank! Anyway, the upshot of this friendship was that in the year 2000 (11 months before 9/11) Aaron Russo learned from his Rockefeller buddy that there was going to be an "event". He was told that out of this event the U.S. would go into Afghanistan and look for Bin Laden in Caves and then the U.S. would go into Iraq. His fascinating testimony about this "event" and how it fits into their agenda starts at 26:45 here in this interview (If you have the time watch the whole thing - chances are you have never seen an interview quite like this one):


http://youtu.be/YGAaPjqdbgQ

Another thing. In April 2013 a 40 story skyscraper in Chechnya caught fire and thoroughly burned into a crinkling cinder [see the video within the next link below]. However it did not collapse. By comparison WTC Building Seven had a few small fires and was never hit by a plane. It did collapse. See that article here:

http://www.infowars.com/skyscraper-engulfed-by-fire-does-not...

Now see this:
http://youtu.be/hZEvA8BCoBw

Amazingly, all this evidence is only the tip of the iceberg. Each of these are separate independent pieces of evidence from unconnected sources. When taken together they paint a clear picture.

You are a juror in a court of law. What would be your verdict? Remember, the word “conspiracy” is not in the dictionary to describe a fiction.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

40-Story Chechnya Skyscraper Roars into Flames on Every Floor

They finally put the fire out just this morning. Yet, it still did not collapse:

http://www.infowars.com/skyscraper-engulfed-by-fire-does-not...

So what more evidence do we need?

July 26, 2013: I decided to use this Chechnya article in my article above instead of this:

http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-...

That's because key photos have somehow disappeared recently from the Chinese building article and the video in this Chechnya article is very convincing.

-Bloatedtoad

nothing...so go do something about

the injustice.

Why wasn't steel architectural science not rewritten post 9/11?

Architects and engineers faced three devastating failures that day. You'd have thought they would have stopped all steel towers, world-wide, and figured out what they had learned and observed, and then build better thereafter. You also would have expected that they would have as much access to the aftermath/crime-scene as they would have needed to construct better towers in the future.

Why didn't that happen? Chechnya shows us yet another example confirming that there was nothing wrong with the construction of those three towers on 9/11. What was wrong was the hubris of the official story-tellers who thought they could outwit folks that constructed these towers to withstand this bad and worse.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

splain

how does the construction of a 40 story building in Chechnya "confirm that there was nothing wrong with the construction of those thee towers on 9/11" other than the fact that they used some kind of construction that included some kind of steel?

Not trying to be a dick, but it seems like quite a leap.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

That was bait. Thanks for asking

Glaringly absent in the aftermath of that day was any real shift within the architect and engineer community on doing much different than what they knew science supported then and now.

To me, it's a tacit admission from those lacking the fortitude; that what was constructed properly back then, and impacted less than worse-case-scenario, twice, did not fail and fall because they hadn't applied sciences properly back then, nor since. There had to be another explanation; it's just that fewer are willing to follow truth wherever it leads than the majority so far.

The Chechnya tower, being so close in height to Building 7, burning far worse than it, and NOT falling; likely isn't because of improvements in construction practices post 9/11; but if that still seems like a leap to you, well, then call me a jumper!

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Did you see my reply below?

(1) In the aftermath of that day there *were* discussions and building code changes directly because of 9/11, addressing, among other things, the potential for collapse due to burnout. One starting point is the International Code Council http://www.iccsafe.org/ (search for "WTC").

(2) You say "burning far worse than it" but even the infowars article quotes the line about the Chechnya tower burning a lot of exterior plastic trim but leaving the interior untouched. How is that "far worse"?

"Thermal expandsion" was not taught nor believed among A&E

Thermal expansion" was made for the press, not scientists who would have had to radically change foundational truth-as-we-know-it in many different fields of science to go along with the official conspiracy.

Building 7 had what appears to be regional, and not universal fire damage. In Chechnya, "the interior", is likely the steel core that frames from within what was much like that of all past steel structures.

Do you really believe that much fire came from "burning a lot of exterior plastic trim"?

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

I was just pointing out that you were wrong

about engineers not changing building codes in response to 9/11. Search for "collapse" in this document:
http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Documents/WTC/CodeChanges/CTC_...
or for "burnout" and "collapse" in the site search for more.

BTW where did you get the idea that "thermal expansion" isn't taught or believed by architects and engineers?? What do you think that means, that would be a change to foundational truths? Thermal expansion is not a new idea in the slightest. Engineers and architects most certainly do take thermal expansion into account in many ways. At the very least you can see that it's not just "for the press" in since it's part of the discussion of the post-9/11 building code changes.

A more believable spin on this would be that the official explanation was carried over into the building code changes because they were pressured to support the official explanation. Saying that there were no changes to building codes in response to the official explanation doesn't seem like a good strategy since (a) anyone with a functioning bs filter will want to check up on it, and (b) when they check up on it less than a minute of googling will turn up many links showing that in fact changes were made in response to 9/11 and the official explanation.

Do you really believe that much fire came from "burning a lot of exterior plastic trim"?

I'm going by what the infowars article says. It says the interior of the building was "untouched." And the surface area burning, according to the article, was 14,000 square meters. That's 150,000 square feet. What do you think 150,000 square feet of burning plastic looks like?

It also says "Although officials expressed concern at one point that the building could collapse, its core structure was not affected by the huge fire." So let's first note that the idea of fire causing that building to collapse didn't seem at all strange to them. More specifically, they were worried that the building might collapse if the fire got to the core structure, but the fire didn't get to the core structure.

Thermal expansion as the cause for a systemic failure

Thermal expansion was never taught before as the possible reason to expect this kind of uniform failure, causing concrete to pulverize outward and three massive footprint drops at near free-fall speed.

If you can show us where and when a total reset and reboot of Architecture 101 happened, then I'll stand corrected. Tweaking the codes just doesn't cut it for me, but maybe believing enough, for some, makes it so.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Total reset?

Where are you getting this idea about "total reset and reboot" being needed? I'm not a structural engineer, but from my reading of the building code discussions and proposals, the response to WTC 7 was continuous with prior ideas about protecting steel-framed buildings from collapse. The changes are about addressing the reasons that the WTC 7 fire couldn't be suppressed, factors that made it worse (the fuel storage in the building), and increasing insulation requirements to add more margin of safety in case of fire. Given that they are taking the official report at face value, what more do you expect?

Maybe you're thinking that in response to 9/11 they should have banned the long-span beams that were used in WTC 7, required new buildings to use concrete cores, etc? If you read the discussions on the iccsafe.org site I think you can see why. The quote below is from a proposed change. It's clear that they're aware that "innovative structural design" using longer spans involves greater risk (and thermal expansion is just one aspect of this that they mention). But sometimes people want to push the envelope, so instead of going with safe but boring, they allow for innovative structural design while mitigating risks.

The purpose of the code change is to include new text such that performance based design of structural steel frames can be proposed on projects. This means that the IBC would allow performance based design for fire resistance similarly to other international codes for example in the UK, Europe and Australia. Also to recognize that the performance of structural members in a real fire can be very different to the fire resistance of single members i.e. a beam, column or slab acting in isolation of the rest of the frame in a standard furnace.

This is important because savings in structural fire protection can be made when structures are robustly designed but also weaknesses in the structural frame which can exist when thermal expansion forces act on a structure during a fire can be identified and designed against. This is particularly important in innovative structural design and iconic buildings which are generally much taller or have longer spans and cannot be adequately tested in standard furnace tests. The methodology however is applicable to any structure

When has melting metal caused uniform sequenced failure?

All three buildings had pulverized concrete dust and debris expanding in all directions, all fell in their footprints. Building 7 didn't blow out the sides until it hit the ground, so it looked more like a planned demolition, but that only makes the comparisons more glaringly obvious. Melting metal doesn't put out any impacting force, so gravity is supposed to be the only uniform force present. Even an exploding fuel storage tank wouldn't have had a uniform effect.

Only planned implosions have fallen like this, so IF these three supposedly aren't planned; that would be where I got the idea that a major revision in architectural science should have been expected, but didn't happen.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

wayyyy too many conspiracy kooks

on this site. Just sayin.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Deeply honored by your kook assignment

Even when you try and distance yourself from judging others too severely, just because you don't buy it ALL, doesn't mean you haven't bought enough to doubt your claims of objective discernment!

I wish I could commend you better as an effective opponent, or, "devil's advocate"; because sadly, your devil, or adversarial-side, was more convincing than your disclaimer.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Hmm...

First, kudos for the Patrick Henry quote. That is what we are here for, for liberty, not for supporting each and every person's pet conspiracy ideas.

Second, I never called you a kook as is evident from my post. I said there are too many conspiracy kooks here, which I think is true. I have no idea if you are one of the way too many.

Third, I don't necessarily buy anyone's pet theory. I think a lot of key information which would explain certain facts that give rise to the various theories out there, was probaby withheld from everyone and we are just grasping at straws. There's a lot that bothers me about the official narrative, but there's also a lot of reasons to doubt (and in some cases, discard) some of the conspiracy theories out there.

I have no idea what your pet theory is.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Criminal theories are about getting to the truth to save others

I have a pet as a companion and servant, but criminal theories don't work as pets for me. All mob overthrows were not just about the individual's part(s); but also what they did in CONSPIRACY with others, especially when done in known patterns.

You posted the "kook" notice under my post, so it's only right that I reply. Baseless fears, alone, are the stuff of crazed theorists, BUT, when the truth appears to be self-evident, then what we do with it says more about ourselves than we'd like to admit.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Only a real uneducated, or in your case overeducated,

kook would buy the official lie. Or maybe you're just here to wave your magic BS word wand and we will all stop thinking critically. Note to establishment whores, your magic word wand is broken, it no longer works. Science and truth trump lies every time!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Once again, the same fallacy

Just because I don't agree with everything said in one speculative thread on the internet, doesn't mean I believe everything about the official story.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

oops, double post

.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Actually they did make a lot of changes

It's not hard to find building code changes made very specifically because of 9/11. Google will turn up a lot, but for some (but not all) of the story you can go to http://www.iccsafe.org/ (International Code Council) and enter "WTC" in the search box and find quite a bit about it. You can see the discussion there about collapse due to fire, etc. Of course you can say that they had to have those discussions and make those changes in order to support the official cover story ...

As for the building in Chechnya, even the infowars article includes the line:
“According to the emergencies service, the blaze has damaged an area of more than 14,000 square meters. It has completely destroyed the plastic trimming used on the building’s exterior, but the interior remained untouched.

If the blaze was due to a large amount of flammable plastic trim on the building's exterior, and the interior remained untouched, doesn't that make it a poor comparison to building seven?

sharkhearted's picture

It is time to take action

We need to organize citizen's grand juries (and yes, this is constitutional) that can indict the cover-up artists at NIST and FEMA and the 9-11 Commission for fraud.

The evidence is there to indict them all.

The big problem is finding a prosecutor who will run with it. Taking on this case is like a big bullseye and puts any prosecutor in the crosshairs.

However, I believe there are still a few good men and women in that field, and, just like Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest who stood up against the NDAA, might DO THE RIGHT THING and let the trials begin.

When it comes to 9-11 there are not enough courtrooms and prosecutors and judges on the planet to handle the caseload. It is only a matter of time when we reach a critical mass.

Ignore the shills on here and when you get a chance please visit my site www.911crimes.org It is very preliminary, but I am hoping to join forces with others across the planet in the 9-11 Truth Movement, to bring justice to this horrific crime....which...if the Shadow Government of the USA never existed...would have never happened in the first place.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Since it's time to put it to rest...

...why don't you.

There's a lot of money to be made in pushing conspiracy theories. The 9/11 conspiracy may be the greatest money maker yet.

sharkhearted's picture

No...the 9-11 cover-up may be the greatest CRIME yet

Do you care about justice, and avenging the 3000 souls lost that day, and the 6000 american troops lost since because of that day?

Or are you going to be part of the coverup?

The battle line has been drawn....

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

I think...

...you've been watching too many movies. I was in D.C. when the plane hit the Pentagon.

Even if you weren't in NYC or D.C., do you really believe that hundreds, if not thousands, of people who saw those planes hit the buildings, not to mention all the TV reporters and independent experts, were all in on a government conspiracy? Because that's how many it would take to keep such a secret.

Please, it's time to put this stuff to rest.

Yes, put it to rest

You've failed!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

What happened to the planes and everyone aboard them?

Sorry. Could'a sworn my cousin, who was on the Staten Island Ferry, witnessed the second plane crashing into the Twin Towers as the Ferry threw into reverse and returned across the harbor after the first attack. I ought to interview her again some time to make sure she saw the plane strike as she claimed back in 2001.

Anyway: What happened to the planes and everyone aboard them? The Pennsylvania crash is suspicious as, like with the others, there is no wreckage, just a black spot.

Even TWA 800 has had scraps recovered from the bottom of the Atlantic and reassembled into a tormented phantom image of what was once a plane.

Never saw a reconstuction of the PA plane that went down, or the pentagon plane.

Still, what about the phone calls from the passengers during the hijacking? They weren't all DOD people, were they?

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

ecorob's picture

Riddle me this...

EVERY walmart in America has AT LEAST 21 cameras rolling 24/7/365 on the front entrances. Don't believe me? Check it out. Its been that way ever since they opened.

Yet, the most heavily surveiled, most heavily defensed building in the WORLD can NOT produce a single video of a plane flying into it?

Did you see the video of the black girl who was there with her baby and hit the computer button just as the "missle/explosion" occurred? Listen to what she has to say. No plane, no bodies, no luggage, no jet fuel smell, no engines, NOTHING like a plane as she walked OUT of the building THROUGH the hole created by the explosion!

Just saw this video linked below. Thanks, constitutional.

NO VIDEO. Sandy Hoax? NO VIDEO. Aurora? NO VIDEO. Plenty of video of civilians ANY other time EXCEPT these times...hmmmmm?

False Flags, every one. Disinfo trolls can not stop this tide. It rolls like a tsunami. Lie all you want, trolls.

We will bury you with the truth.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Yeah April Gallop who says

Yeah April Gallop who says she saw no plane parts but sued American Airlines.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/9-11_survivor_who_cla...

She also said she was in shock, it was very smoky, and she wasn't looking around for evidence.
I don't think it makes a difference either way, but I have a hard time believing her since she says she came out the hole. Why would you walk towards the explosion and fire and not the other way to get out? I mean show me where you think she walked out in these pictures:

http://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/DM-...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MGRMdnZJk-Y/UFQEdBJzaoI/AAAAAAAAAD...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JRoSNX6CDVA/UFQJ4wGpAjI/AAAAAAAAAE...

Because she also says nothing was on fire, looks to me like she would have had to walk through fire or be sprayed by the firehoses putting out the fires.

This is a great comment.

Let's not look at the situation as a whole and just deal with small chunks at first. We can build a larger picture as we check these other items off the list.

So can somebody give a believable reason why it doesn't serve the public interest release a video that clearly shows a plane hitting the Pentagon? I've racked my brain and I can't think of one. The best I could do is that perhaps they don't want other terrorists seeing how to successfully crash a plane into the building but that sounds ridiculous when said aloud.

I have seen a youtube user video where the few frames that were made available were analyzed to best show how what was in the image may have been a plane but it took a lot of squinting and head-tilting to find much confidence in that. I certainly wouldn't say I was anywhere near believing it after seeing the damage to the building.

So let's hear it. Why does it serve the public not to see that plane crashing? I'm ready to be sold.

Same with Adam Lanza walking into the school entrance.

That event is pretty fresh so I will reserve judgement until they finalize their "investigation" but although I would agree that I don't need to see bloodied bodies, I do not see what is so harmful about seeing this weapon-laden skinny kid shoot his way into the front door.

If anything, this would help strengthen public opinion for gun control just because it shows the actual weapon in use. They don't use this video, not because it would cause trauma to the victim's families, but because it probably doesn't exist.

But again, we aren't over a decade out past that event so I'll reserve full judgement for later.

This Is

[