Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
LOL@stevie, how come people are so easily offended nowadays, but I admit I find it entertaining.
ReplyDeleteIt would be fun to get Judy back on the show, but I guess thats not going to happen anytime soon since she is borderline.
But the bathtub argument against the nuclear demolishon hypothesis is not very convinsing.
If the explosive device was placed under wtc when it was constructed, measures must have been taken to make sure the "bathtub" was not damaged if used, or the device would never have been allowed.
So in order to dismiss the nuclear underground demolition hypothesis, one must make a case that the bathtub could never be protected from the blast and I have not seen that argued convincingly. Maybe I have missed it, there is so much information eeverywhere.
This is a hugely important set of topics and a great interview. Both Nick Kollerstrom and Judy Wood are onto "the real deal." Good job Jim, but please don't dismiss what Judy is saying.
ReplyDeletemotorfot, It is part of Demitri's theory that the videos showing the towers being destroyed from the top down is a kind of optical illusion, since their bottom-most 60 floors have already been decimated by the blast coming from the bottom up. Then the next 20-30 floors are damaged and only the top sections are actually falling down. I find this fantastic. If you want to believe that, fine; but it appears to me to be completely indefensible. Give this some serious thought and tell me why I'm wrong. Our conversation is archived on-line right here. Search for it.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to give my 2 cents on that interview.
ReplyDeleteNorway:
If someone did call those people on the Island, he/they obviously had their phone numbers. And he/they knew who was attending the meeting/event.
So question 1:
was there a list of attendees?
Question 2:
Where all the kid’s phone numbers listed in the yellow pages or where some private? \
Question 3:
Did the Norway police release the phone numbers that were called Brevnick? If yes does it add up to what happened at utoya?
Kollstrom was saying that he did not think the Pic of Brevnick was authentic. In that pic can you see other cars? If yes has anyone found out who the owners are if they did park them their at the specific date and time? The same applies to the pic of the suicide bombers in the London metro. There are other people among the “terrorist”, so maybe they can confirm that the date and time are authentic.
Here’s another thing to consider, if the Oslo Bombing did have another agenda, let’s say that for example that Brevnick’s controlling hands wanted to destroy files or documents in the Oil Ministry. Let’s go further and say that it was the files/documents for the legal case against Transocean ( Halliburton Company) . Brevnick could not have parked the Van anywhere, he would have had to get as close to the Building as possible. Otherwise the fires on the fourth floor could not have been connected to the Van Explosion. I would expect that waiting for a parking spot in front of the Oil Ministry would have been too much of a gamble to take on that morning. So when Brevnick drove down that street that fateful day looking for a place to park, did anyone just pullout and leave thus allow Brevnick a precise parking position?