Are there any legitimate questions about 9-11?

[parky76]

I dont know about the rest of you, but while I am convinced by the great majority of the various investigations into 9-11, I do still have a few questions.

-I'd like to know a lot more about the financing of Al-Qaeda leading up to 9-11.

-I'd like to know a lot more about possible involvemant by members of the Saudi govt and members of the Bin Laden family. People aren't rushed out of the country if there is nothing to hide.

Those are just two questions, and I am wondering if you all have any others.

Truthers.....please save your "questions" for another topic.

[PhantomWolf]

-I'd like to know a lot more about the financing of Al-Qaeda leading up to 9-11.

While this would be interesting, without AQ's finacial records it's unlikely to happen. We do know some of the sources, one was Pakistan. They were funding AQ for use of their camps to train insurgents in Kashmere. Other sources came from various Muslim "Charities" about the Middle East and even in the US. Most of them have since been shut down via the new terrorism finacing laws that came into place post-2001. The major issue is that AQ had gained so many sources of funding after their attacks on the US embassies and the USS Cole, that trying to locate where the money for the 9/11 attacks came from exactly would likely be impossible.

-I'd like to know a lot more about possible involvemant by members of the Saudi govt and members of the Bin Laden family. People aren't rushed out of the country if there is nothing to hide.

I think that you'll find this was mostly purdence rather then having something to hide. Just because you run doesn't mean you are scared becasuse you are guilty, sometimes you are just scared. Answer this honestly, with the country starting to came to the realisation that the attacks were under Bin Laden's umbrella, if you were his half brother, would you stay in the US? How do you explain to the unruly mob who is out top lynch you that a) you have never meet him, b) you don't support him, and c) you just have the same last name cause of your father. Not exactly easy, the far better idea is to get out of the way while the heat is at boiling point, then return after thinmgs have quietened down and it's safe. Now you might say, "But Americans wouldn't lynch first and ask questions later" and that might be right in most parts, but also remember that in SA this is still common practice so it's still a better safe than sorry approach.

[parky76]

Family members of high ranking Nazis, including Adolf Hitler himself, still live in the USA. If they feel safe enough to be here, I dont see why the Bin Laden family would have an issue too. Bear in mind they all supposedly disowned him after the Kobar Towers bombing..so what would they have to fear?

[PhantomWolf]

Family members of high ranking Nazis, including Adolf Hitler himself, still live in the USA. If they feel safe enough to be here, I dont see why the Bin Laden family would have an issue too. Bear in mind they all supposedly disowned him after the Kobar Towers bombing..so what would they have to fear?

Were those family members living in the US right after Germany declared war, or have they moved here since the end of WW2?

Let's look at US history should, since you mention WW2. What happened to any person of Japanese background after Pearl Habor was attacked?

You don't think that there might have been a bit of a backlash after 9/11 again anyone that looked Arab and had the name Bin Laden? Heck there were plently of news stories of Middle Eastern people (http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/news/010927_sanfrancisco.html) being attacked (http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/news/010925_detroit.html) and threatened without (http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/news/010921_students.html) their names being Bin laden (http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/news/010919_iranian.html).

[parky76]

Pearl Harbor was attacked by the nation of Japan. No nation attacked us on 9-11.

[WildCat]

Parky, you do realize they were cleared by the FBI prior to leaving? And now, 7 years later, there is still no evidence any of them had anything to do with it, don't you?

[PhantomWolf]

Pearl Harbor was attacked by the nation of Japan. No nation attacked us on 9-11.

Parky has LastChild hacked your account?

Where was the evidence that it wasn't a nation backed attack 3 days out from the attacks? Sure OBL was getting the attention, and rightly so, but there was still speculation about it being a foriegn country backed attack.

Still that is irrelevant. They left because they were scared of a backlash, a backlash that did happen, and one you seem to be totally ignoring. Totally innocent people were threatened, attacked, had thier businesses burnt down, all because they were or looked Middle Eastern. Again I ask you, why shouldn't middle eastern people with the last name of Bin Laden been scared to stay in the US when anyone with two braincells to rub together knew the if they stayed they'd be a target for the outrage over the attacks? Not only did the public attack mulsims and middle eastern men, but the Govt reacted by locking up any they could find too. Heck I would have been on the first boat out, cause I wouldn't have been waiting for planes to start flying, either that of I would have driven to Canada and flown from there.

[parky76]

Parky, you do realize they were cleared by the FBI prior to leaving? And now, 7 years later, there is still no evidence any of them had anything to do with it, don't you?

i know they were cleared by the FBI...but I have not seen any evidence that the FBI sufficiantly questioned them before they were allowed to leave.

it appears to me that the overriding goal was to get them out of the country.

if i killed someone of importance or commited a horrible crime, im sure my parents and friends would be questioned for hours about what they knew and not allowed to leave the state..let alone the country.

i am NOT SAYING that the FBI let them go cause they were "in on it". but i am suggesting that they were pressured to let them due to concerns from the Saudi govt.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Family members of high ranking Nazis, including Adolf Hitler himself, still live in the USA. If they feel safe enough to be here, I dont see why the Bin Laden family would have an issue too. Bear in mind they all supposedly disowned him after the Kobar Towers bombing..so what would they have to fear?

Thread Godwinned at 3rd post.

Parky... getting the Bin Ladens out of the US was just plain common sense. It probably didn't save anyones lives. But if anything had happened, it would have been a giant black mark against the US.

Just like not storing matches with gasoline, they generally don't light themselves, but why take the risk?

[PhantomWolf]

i know they were cleared by the FBI...but I have not seen any evidence that the FBI sufficiantly questioned them before they were allowed to leave.

Perhaps you need to read the 9/11 Commission Report:

Twenty-two of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity... The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

i know they were cleared by the FBI...but I have not seen any evidence that the FBI sufficiantly questioned them before they were allowed to leave.

Have you seen any evidence that they were not sufficiently questioned before being allowed to leave?

[MG1962]

I can see where Parky is going with this. And I would be interested to see what the Saudi connection was. I am not sure the Bin Ladens who left the US have much to be concerned about, but it is a very extended family so you never know you might be turned up.

One thing I would like explored - I believe the report into the towers presumed that the fire proofing was 'shocked' from the steel frames. The NIST notes in its report that the fireproofing was actually over applied as per current codes. The thickness was reduced shortly after the towers were built.

The answer has a major bearing on steel framed construction today. If architects are working to a standard, that may not be adequate, they need to understand the mechanisms to help them create greater suvivablilty in high rise buildings.

[Tippit]

I think that you'll find this was mostly purdence rather then having something to hide. Just because you run doesn't mean you are scared becasuse you are guilty, sometimes you are just scared. Answer this honestly, with the country starting to came to the realisation that the attacks were under Bin Laden's umbrella, if you were his half brother, would you stay in the US? How do you explain to the unruly mob who is out top lynch you that a) you have never meet him, b) you don't support him, and c) you just have the same last name cause of your father. Not exactly easy, the far better idea is to get out of the way while the heat is at boiling point, then return after thinmgs have quietened down and it's safe. Now you might say, "But Americans wouldn't lynch first and ask questions later" and that might be right in most parts, but also remember that in SA this is still common practice so it's still a better safe than sorry approach.

That's nice. But it completely overlooks the fact that the Bin Ladens were protected and coddled by the US Government. They were flown out of the US while all other commercial aircraft were grounded. How did the FBI know that other members of the family weren't involved, with any degree of certainty? Are you going to make the argument that the investigation was completed within the three days after the attacks?

In any case, the evidence against the rest of the Bin Laden family for complicity in 9/11 was only slightly weaker than that against Bin Laden himself, which was virtually nothing to begin with. Despite this, I don't see why the US taxpayer should have funded the protection and movement of this family. They could have gotten the next commercial flight out of there along with regular citizens who had to wait like everyone else to fly, assuming they were reasonably cleared by the FBI. I suppose their special treatment probably has something to do with what FBI agent Robert Wright said:

"All we can tell you is, the Bushes vacation with the Bin Ladens."

[MG1962]

They could have gotten the next commercial flight out of there along with regular citizens who had to wait like everyone else to fly, assuming they were reasonably cleared by the FBI. I suppose their special treatment probably has something to do with what FBI agent Robert Wright said:

"All we can tell you is, the Bushes vacation with the Bin Ladens."

Well the Australian Prime Minister had to wait for a specially cleared RAAF plane to come and fetch him from Washington. He was there for a visit during the crisis

[PhantomWolf]

That's nice. But it completely overlooks the fact that the Bin Ladens were protected and coddled by the US Government. They were flown out of the US while all other commercial aircraft were grounded. How did the FBI know that other members of the family weren't involved, with any degree of certainty? Are you going to make the argument that the investigation was completed within the three days after the attacks?

Just a small question. How does the fact that they didn't fly anywhere until the 20th affect the above paragraph?

Despite this, I don't see why the US taxpayer should have funded the protection and movement of this family. They could have gotten the next commercial flight out of there along with regular citizens who had to wait like everyone else to fly, assuming they were reasonably cleared by the FBI.

Again I'd note that everyone else could fly on the 20th as well, and I'd also note that their flights were private planes paid for by the Bin Laden Group, not the US Taxpayer.

[T.A.M.]

Parky;

I too have questions concerning the funding sources of Al Qaeda.

I do not think, however, that if we did know them, that they would point to the USG. I think there are those in the USG who turn a blind eye to those in other country's who then turn a blind eye, and so on. I think that at some point you will find someone who should not be funding terrorists, funding them, but I do not think they are doing so at the BEHEST of elements of the USG.

TAM:)

[Tippit]

Just a small question. How does the fact that they didn't fly anywhere until the 20th affect the above paragraph?



Because that apparently isn't true:



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34405




WND DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Bin Ladens allowed out of U.S. after 9-11
Former White House official confirms operation said to be rumor
Posted: September 04, 2003
5:00 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com



In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks while U.S. airspace was restricted, planes sanctioned by the Bush administration flew about the country gathering some 140 high-ranking Saudi Arabians – including several relatives of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden – who were then spirited out of the country within a week of the terror, according to a senior official.

...

"We were in the midst of the worst terrorist act in history and here we were seeing an evacuation of the bin Ladens. ... I wanted to go the highest levels in Washington," Tom Kinton, director of aviation at Boston's Logan International Airport, told the magazine. Kinton said it was clear the operation had the blessings of federal authorities.

Once the flight ban was lifted, two jumbo jets transported the Saudis out of the country. The Boston Globe reported at the time that two flights bound for Saudi Arabia with members of the bin Laden clan on board left Logan on Sept. 18 and 19. Other reports put the departure date at Sept. 14.



So, depending on who you believe, they either left on the 14th, the 18th, or the 19th. The ban was presumably lifted after the 13th, but apparently the Bin Ladens were being "gathered" prior to that, during the commercial flight ban.



Again I'd note that everyone else could fly on the 20th as well, and I'd also note that their flights were private planes paid for by the Bin Laden Group, not the US Taxpayer.

Do you have a source for that? If that's the case, then what business did the Bin Ladens have with the US government? It appears that someone is lying here, whether it is fmr white house counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, FBI counterterrorism spokesman John Iannarelli, or fmr FBI head of counterterrorism Dale Watson.

[gumboot]

That's nice. But it completely overlooks the fact that the Bin Ladens were protected and coddled by the US Government.

No they weren't.


They were flown out of the US while all other commercial aircraft were grounded.

No they weren't.


How did the FBI know that other members of the family weren't involved, with any degree of certainty?

Because the FBI investigated the people in question. That's what investigators do.


In any case, the evidence against the rest of the Bin Laden family for complicity in 9/11 was only slightly weaker than that against Bin Laden himself, which was virtually nothing to begin with.

This is nonsense. Only two Bin Ladens have ever partaken in terrorist activities, and only one Bin Laden has established an Islamic Terrorist organisation with the stated goal of destroying the USA.


Despite this, I don't see why the US taxpayer should have funded the protection and movement of this family.

They didn't.


They could have gotten the next commercial flight out of there along with regular citizens who had to wait like everyone else to fly, assuming they were reasonably cleared by the FBI.

They flew out on a charter flight paid for by... them... at a time when anyone who had the cash could charter a flight and leave the country. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about the flight, other than the unusual scrutiny that it received from FBI investigators.

[GregoryUrich]

I dont know about the rest of you, but while I am convinced by the great majority of the various investigations into 9-11, I do still have a few questions.

-I'd like to know a lot more about the financing of Al-Qaeda leading up to 9-11.

-I'd like to know a lot more about possible involvemant by members of the Saudi govt and members of the Bin Laden family. People aren't rushed out of the country if there is nothing to hide.

Those are just two questions, and I am wondering if you all have any others.

Truthers.....please save your "questions" for another topic.

Why did NORAD lie and why weren't they held accountable?

Background information here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG9KOdEPAQQ&feature=related).

[T.A.M.]

Why did NORAD lie and why weren't they held accountable?

Background information here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG9KOdEPAQQ&feature=related).

1. If they knew different, and yet intentionally mislead, then they were lying. Your video does not prove it. I am sure you can present us with proof that they knew different, but gave the wrong timeline. If proof of this is given, I can concede that they were lying.

2. If they were lying (intentionally giving factually incorrect information), then they should be held accountable...no questions.

3. My suspicion is they were either (A) Covering their asses, or (B) got faulty information in the fog of war, or shortly there after, and this is what was presented in the original timeline.

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

1. If they knew different, and yet intentionally mislead, then they were lying. Your video does not prove it. I am sure you can present us with proof that they knew different, but gave the wrong timeline. If proof of this is given, I can concede that they were lying.

2. If they were lying (intentionally giving factually incorrect information), then they should be held accountable...no questions.

3. My suspicion is they were either (A) Covering their asses, or (B) got faulty information in the fog of war, or shortly there after, and this is what was presented in the original timeline.

TAM:)

You might want to watch the video again. They gave false information to the 9/11 commission with no "fog of war" as may have been present in the original timeline. The legitimate question is: did they know they were giving false testimony and if so why? I think this should be investigated.

[JamesB]

Only it trutherspeak does "not holding foreign nationals hostage based on their ethnicity" translate to "coddling".

Besides, the troofers have been telling us for years that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11, so why should we have held them?

[PhantomWolf]

You might want to watch the video again. They gave false information to the 9/11 commission with no "fog of war" as may have been present in the original timeline. The legitimate question is: did they know they were giving false testimony and if so why? I think this should be investigated.

It is a legitimate question, but again one that has been pretty much answered for the most part. It's known that until the DoJ pulled the tapes and reconstructed the timeline from the tapes, no one else did so, so the intial NORAD timeline was constructed not from the best evidence, the tapes, but rather from personal recollection. As CheapShot keeps reminding people, individual timelines are pretty messy for that day, people that were involved do remember the big parts, but the timing all seems to be out the window for most of them, and so the NORAD timeline was based on when people thought they did things, rather then when they actually did. Why wasn't it checked before they went to the Commision? I suspect that was because the people at NORAD had much better things to do that sit down and listen to 40+ hours of tape and figure it all out.

In the end you have to ask yourself this question. Why would any person or organisation lie in such a way that it makes them look worse than the truth would have? i.e. If they knew the real timeline, why did they give one that made them look downright incompetent compared to the real one?

[parky76]

Only it trutherspeak does "not holding foreign nationals hostage based on their ethnicity" translate to "coddling".

Besides, the troofers have been telling us for years that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11, so why should we have held them?

good point. the truthers demand to know why we didnt hold the bin laden family...even though they insist there are just a bunch of innocent ignorant cave arabs.

[Tippit]

good point. the truthers demand to know why we didnt hold the bin laden family...even though they insist there are just a bunch of innocent ignorant cave arabs.

This is an example of "duh-bunker" mentality at its finest. According to the official fairytale, Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. According to various sources in the FBI and the National Security Council, the Bin Laden family was allowed to fly while everyone else was grounded, and then allowed to leave the country without a sufficient investigation. Instead of viewing this as evidence that high-level elements in the government protected family members of the evil terrorist that allegedly killed nearly three-thousand people, it's instead turned around and used as evidence that truthers are somehow hypocritical.

You are totally irrational, and unreasonable. You will never be convinced of anything, save what you wish to believe.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Because that apparently isn't true:


Care to join the rest of us here in 2008, Tippit? Judicial Watch, in 2007 and as a result of a FOIA request, obtained FBI documents (http://www.judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml) stating the flight occurred on the 20th.

[gumboot]

Why did NORAD lie and why weren't they held accountable?

Background information here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG9KOdEPAQQ&feature=related).



How do you know they did, and how do you know they weren't?

I have my own theories for NORAD's false testimony and do not see any grounds for accusations of lying. But regardless of yours or mine or the Commission's opinion, both the FAA and NORAD were investigated for their false testimonies to the Commission, so the matter has already been addressed.

ETA. Given that those who gave the original testimony had mostly retired, and given it was not given under oath, there's actually nothing that could be done to them except maybe posting big billboards outside their house with LIAR on it in big text.

[dudalb]

Tippit said:
You are totally irrational, and unreasonable. You will never be convinced of anything, save what you wish to believe.

(IN a Pee Wee Herman voice): I know you are, but what about me?

[OneShotKi11]

I have a question....

How do we know that the fires were hot enough to melt steel or even just cause the beams to sag?
How hot does it actually have to be to start causing any major sag of a beam or column?

IT that even the official story anymore because i have heard it change around alot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k
This is the video that made me ask the question. It as we would expect is full of alot of useless nonsense but this question kind of poked at me. So any answers would be appreciated.

[OneShotKi11]

How do you know they did, and how do you know they weren't?

I have my own theories for NORAD's false testimony and do not see any grounds for accusations of lying. But regardless of yours or mine or the Commission's opinion, both the FAA and NORAD were investigated for their false testimonies to the Commission, so the matter has already been addressed.

ETA. Given that those who gave the original testimony had mostly retired, and given it was not given under oath, there's actually nothing that could be done to them except maybe posting big billboards outside their house with LIAR on it in big text.

He probably knows they did the same way you are able to say they gave "False testimony".
Seems a little strange that you would ask that question then back his original statement by acknowledging that which was originally in question as true.
WTF:confused:

[Dave Rogers]

How do we know that the fires were hot enough to melt steel or even just cause the beams to sag?
How hot does it actually have to be to start causing any major sag of a beam or column?

This is all addressed in the NIST report on the WTC 1 & 2 collapses. The answers may not be easy to follow, because the report assumes a fairly high level of engineering understanding, but they are all present in the report.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Seems a little strange that you would ask that question then back his original statement by acknowledging that which was originally in question as true.
WTF:confused:

What was originally in question was whether NORAD lied. Lying, in this context, refers to giving testimony that the testator knows at the time to be false. What Gumboot is suggesting is that the information given by NORAD was incorrect, but at the time they believed it to be correct. It's the difference between lying and making mistakes, which is rather an important distinction that is frequently lost on conspiracy theorists.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

You might want to watch the video again. They gave false information to the 9/11 commission with no "fog of war" as may have been present in the original timeline. The legitimate question is: did they know they were giving false testimony and if so why? I think this should be investigated.

Where does your video reveal when the alleged culprits gave this "false" info? Where does it name them?

Gregory, I have no doubt you can pull up the names, and the time this was given. This is old news. If I recall, they were high ranking officials, who gave an incorrect timeline of events that morning. If they were INTENTIONALLY misleading, then as I said, YES, it should be looked into, and they should be held responsible. But, if they were given faulty information about the timeline, from others, and then unknowingly presented such, then they are guilty of inadequate verification of the info they were presented with.

That said, when I get around to it, I will watch your VIDEO again.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

This is an example of "duh-bunker" mentality at its finest. According to the official fairytale, Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. According to various sources in the FBI and the National Security Council, the Bin Laden family was allowed to fly while everyone else was grounded, and then allowed to leave the country without a sufficient investigation. Instead of viewing this as evidence that high-level elements in the government protected family members of the evil terrorist that allegedly killed nearly three-thousand people, it's instead turned around and used as evidence that truthers are somehow hypocritical.

You are totally irrational, and unreasonable. You will never be convinced of anything, save what you wish to believe.

You are paranoid and intellectually deprived. You will never be convinced of anything, save what you wish to believe.

TAM:)

[MarkyX]

According to various sources in the FBI and the National Security Council, the Bin Laden family was allowed to fly while everyone else was grounded, and then allowed to leave the country without a sufficient investigation.


Oh wow...2001 theories sprouting up again.

[JamesB]

Oh wow...2001 theories sprouting up again.

Wow, Michael Moore should distort this claim and make it into a movie!

Oh wait....

[OneShotKi11]

This is all addressed in the NIST report on the WTC 1 & 2 collapses. The answers may not be easy to follow, because the report assumes a fairly high level of engineering understanding, but they are all present in the report.

Dave

This is actually not helpful to me. The whole point of me asking the question is because i had no time to do the actual reading/research for it at this time myself.
Basically you told me go read a book, and that the book you are sending me to read i wont understand anyway. Which to me turns out to be a pointless response, atleast in my eyes.

P.S.
You would be surprised what i would understand without any level of comprehension on a given topic.

Can anyone else address the question because i stated earlier the video i watched had me wonder as to what the answer was?

[gumboot]

I have a question....

How do we know that the fires were hot enough to melt steel or even just cause the beams to sag?
How hot does it actually have to be to start causing any major sag of a beam or column?

IT that even the official story anymore because i have heard it change around alot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k
This is the video that made me ask the question. It as we would expect is full of alot of useless nonsense but this question kind of poked at me. So any answers would be appreciated.


NIST found upper air temperature limits of IIRC about 1000 degrees C. At this temperature steel has only 10% of its room temperature strength.

Steel begins losing strength at relatively low temperatures.

Others more knowledgeable than me can fill in the details, but my understanding is that the truss sagging wasn't exclusively a result of the heating of the steel, but as much due to heating and then cooling, and also other miscellaneous factors such as damage from impact.

It is worth nothing that the sagging of beams is well documented in many other fires, so there's nothing profound about this occurring in the WTC. What made the consequences so dire in this instance was that the trusses in the WTC were so long and only supported at either end.

Thus the fires were sufficient to cause sagging of horizontal supports, however it was the unique construction of the WTC that caused this sagging to have such catastrophic consequences.

[OneShotKi11]

Thank you for the reply.
Is the same said about WTC7?

[PhantomWolf]

Thank you for the reply.
Is the same said about WTC7?

IN WTC 7 the fireproofing was intact for the most part and so the steel never weaken, rather they have looked into the expansion of the steel as it heated and found that the long sections in the building would have expanded more than the connections holding it together would have been able to handle. With one major column which was supporting much of the eastern side of the building being deformed by this expanision, the weight redistribution would have been too much for the rest of the columns and started the collapse under the eastern penthouse.

Interestingly enough NIST was actually critisied by serveral engineers for ignoring the affects of heat expansion in WTC 1 & 2 where several papers have pointed to it increasing the amount of sag in the floor trusses. It seems that after that they were more willing to look into it as a previously unconsidered issue in tall buildings.

[Dave Rogers]

This is actually not helpful to me. The whole point of me asking the question is because i had no time to do the actual reading/research for it at this time myself.
Basically you told me go read a book, and that the book you are sending me to read i wont understand anyway. Which to me turns out to be a pointless response, atleast in my eyes.

Sorry, I can see it might have looked that way. I wasn't actually answering your question, rather I was trying to answer the meta-question implied by the thread title. The point is that, although this is a legitimate engineering question about the WTC collapses, it's one that has been answered to the complete satisfaction of the engineering community. The fact that this answer doesn't get more widely communicated is regrettable, but one of the reasons for this communication failure is the deliberate clouding of the issue by the 9/11 truth movement whenever it gets mentioned. There is good information available, but the truth movement repeatedly buries it in lies.

Dave