Kyle Kulinski Sees the Bigger Threat Behind the Youtube Purge… kinda.

by Scott Creighton

I certainly don’t support everything he says or has said on his channel.

However, in this video Kyle Kulinski seems to understand the underlying threat of the latest Youtube purge which is what I wrote about the other day. “First they came for the socialists…” is basically what he is saying.

Of course, he doesn’t touch on the fact that real defense of the freedom of speech REQUIRES defending ALL SPEECH… even that which you find offensive. He says it’s “Okay” that they got rid of Parkland shooting “conspiracy theorists” and would be “Okay” with them doing the same to ones related to Sandy Hook… but then he worries EVENTUALLY THEY WILL COME AFTER FOLKS LIKE HIMSELF.

Aside from that position coming across as extremely self-serving (and pandering in my opinion) he also seems to think Youtube is doing this for the right reasons as he repeatedly says “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”

He couldn’t be more wrong on that.

Youtube is going after low hanging fruit. And to be more specific, they are CLAIMING to go after low hanging fruit while leaving several “no real victims/all crisis actors” proponents up and running while taking down REAL investigative journalists who looked into the REAL conspiracies behind Vegas and Parkland… which was… SOMEONE ELSE ACTUALLY DID IT.

Allow me to explain:

It’s kind of like the “flat earthers”. It’s designed to be insulting and ignorant and make “conspiracy theorists” look stupid or crazy.

The “no real victims” theory is also designed to be deliberately insulting and hurtful which then makes “conspiracy theorists” into… well, into bullies. And of course we see how Youtube has used that label to delete many channels that never even said that.

Think about the whole “Jews did 9/11” campaign. That was designed to make it possible to call all 9/11 Truth activists “antisemitic”, even the ones who had nothing to do with promoting that nonsense. The campaign worked well though and several MSM outlets to this day call all 9/11 Truthers by that same label. It stuck.

So, though Kyle here seems less concerned about really defending free speech than he is with protecting his own channel, it’s still a good video as he does lay out the progression we can expect too see from Youtube in terms of what comes next. And he’s absolutely right. But it isn’t due to “the road to hell”… Youtube is going down that road with very bad intentions from the start.

They know EXACTLY where it leads and I am glad folks like Kyle here see it coming as well. No if he could just figure out Google maps had the trip laid out from the start, he’d be getting closer to the truth. Of course.. that would be a “conspiracy theory”

26 Responses

  1. Your characterisation of this channel is pretty accurate. Seems he can’t see the forest for the trees, maybe he doesn’t want to. Apart from that.his presentation style irritates the fuck out of me. I’m a self-confessed grumpy old man, but young upstarts squeeling in a high pitched voice doth butter no parsnips in this house. But half a mill don’t seem to mind it.
    More importantly … I just heard Mike Adams speaking on Infowars suggesting the purge was to make way for a major FF event. The craiglist ad (now removed) looking for crisis actors in the Houston area stated the required period – around 5th March. It’s speculation sure, but not without sound reasoning behind it. Folks should keep their eyes peeled these days anyway.

  2. I respectfully disagree with you, Scott. There are crisis actors all over this recent shooting. But what really matters is: who is behind this Florida fiasco and what are their ultimate goals? And I think you got that right.

    • there is a difference that most don’t understand between the use of crisis actors in staged and real events. Just because a person ends up “acting” for the cameras after an event doesn’t mean it’s staged or they are a “crisis actor”. Shit, look at Trump interviews before and after the election. When something happens like Parkland, yes, they have a plan as to who is going to step to the forefront and be promoted as the event’s unofficial spokesperson. They would be FOOLISH if they didn’t plan for that. And yes, those spokespeople are COACHED like the Kuwaiti ambasador’s daughter was back in ’91 with her whole “incubator babies” story. Sometimes grieving family members are COACHED before interviews. Look at what happened to all the witnesses to the downing of Flight 800. They were COACHED by the FBI in terms of what they were being TOLD they saw. That doesn’t mean the plane didn’t crash and their weren’t very real grieving family members afterwards.

      You have to look at each case on it’s merits to try to determine as much as you can about it. Starting from the point that everyone is ACTING and LYING is not a valid nor is it a rational place to BEGIN. Folks like Debbie start there and try to find (or fabricate as I proved previously) evidence to support that position and they ignore real evidence as it is presented to them (as she did MANY TIMES when presented contradictory evidence provided to her by myself and MANY of her viewers)

      You start from zero and follow the evidence and contrary to what you have been told, some kid being fed lines by the complicit media IS NOT EVIDENCE. The fact that he was in a local news cast once before IS NOT EVIDENCE. The fact that some of the kids were in a thespian club IS NOT EVIDENCE.

      Right now there is no definitive evidence to suggest no one was shot on Feb. 14th down here in Florida. There is considerable evidence that the patsy was not the shooter and that there may have been collusion with at least some members of local police forces. But of course all of that is lost because a couple of people, one of whom I have proven deliberately misleads her own audience, scream “crisis actor” with no evidence to back it and real investigations are tarred and feathered by that disinfo… my channel being gone as proof of that

      Yes, witnesses are coached. Certain witnesses are left out in the cold while others are promoted. Some witnesses have ulterior motives and clearly seek to gain from the tragedy of the event. this is all true. And yes, sometimes REAL crisis actors are either inserted into real mass casualty events while other events are staged with them entirely. However, that does not mean they are ALL the same so you have to do the work to figure them out, not just seek confirmation bias triggers that could possibly, if you look at them in one way and one way only, confirm your preordained conclusions.

  3. I agree that the “nobody died” stuff is disinfo. I think Fetzer, who started this stuff with Sandy zhook , is a professional government disinformation agent. Thus, I disagree regarding the specific issue of Sandy Hook. I think if you dug up the victims’ graves you would find dead bodies in the coffins. The “nobody died” stuff if powerful disinfo againsy 9-11 Truth inasmuch as it can be said, “The same people who think Israel did 9-11 also believe that no children were killed at Sandy Hook. Did Israel do 9-11? Bollyn thinks so, and so do I.

    • You are absolutely correct about Fetzer. He got his start pushing 3 people in the Truth movement:

      Judy Wood: ray beams from space
      Morgan Reynolds: former Bush admin official: holograms and no plane hit towers
      Steven Jones: “nanothermite”

      • Glad you agree about Fetzer. I disagree regarding nanothermite. I think there is irrefutable proof regarding nanothermite (the 2009 Harrit/Jones paper). (Fetzer has gone to lengths to direct our attention elsewhere than nanothermite.) I think nanothermite is the best argument regarding 9-11. The hot fires in the rubble that lasted for weeks, the abundance of tiny iron raindrops (which is a signature of a thermite fire), and the fact that particles of nanothermite were found in the dust — these three things add up to scientific certainty that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. And this is the best argument.

        • except thermite isn’t a high explosive and cant do a thing to massive steel columns at 10 floors per second like high explosives can. You should RJ Lee report on WTC Dust: Composition and Morphology. Turns out those microspheres that Jones et al deliberately misled folks about were actually all sorts of various metals flash melted at temps higher than 5,000 degs and then cooled, in the air, under extreme pressure. That’s why they concluded that the event that caused them had to be a COMBUSTION EVENT. But of course… “nanothermite” came out and no one paid attention to the real scientific evidence that proved the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. did you know a long time ago I was in contact with Steven Jones and begged him to run a test for traces of high explosive residue in all that WTC dust people were sending him… and he flat out refused to do it. Did you know that? Did you also know he is a Mormon and big in the church (and school) and their leader said at the time it was a sin to do anything that would hinder George W. Bush’s Global War OF Terror because God told him so? Did you know that? And was he fired from BYU? No. He was given all the aid he needed to do his study and in fact one of his fellow professors over there were one of his peer reviewers on his “nanothermite” paper. Did you know all of that? Did you also know in the end Jones himself admitted that most likely all the “nanothermite” was was an “electric match” for the real demolition material? An “electric match”. How many tons of that “electric match” did they say there were? He was disinfo. From the start. RJ Lee Group report. Read it. Read my earlier work on the subject. read my review of Hoffman’s ridiculously stupid “ceiling tiles of DOOM” report and how Jones said it was “plausible”

          RJ Lee Group. WTC Dust: Composition and Morphology. 2004-2005 – “COMBUSTION EVENT”

          • First, yours truly grew up Unitarian. I have no love of the Mormon religion. Now then, nanothermite may not have much explosive power, I grant that. But there is no way nanothermite could have been in the WTC buildings unless it was used in some way for the demolition of these buildings. How it was used is unknown, and it’s not crucial for the argument. The fact that it was present in the buildings is what matters. That is the argument — that it was present in the buildings.

            I don’t know why Jones didn’t want to test the dust for high explosive residues. I personally believe that high explosives were used, in addition to massive amounts of nanothermite.

            • nanothermite is not used in controlled demolitions. if it’s real at all. what he was referring to being found in large quantities were the micro-spheres found by RJ Lee Group. They were all sorts of things like metals, glass and plastics. But mostly metals. This is his “evidence” of nanothermite use. That’s not scientifically accurate. What it did prove, what their presence proved, was that all sorts of metals were flash melted. I once wrote about all the missing trusses and explained if det cord (PETN) was used in the floor systems to break up the floors before they fell (which is what caused the massive clouds of dust) then the resulting heat from the PETN (excess of 8,000 deg F) would have melted the floor trusses, all 60,000 of them… and in fact, I dare you to try to find ONE in any photo of the Twin Towers debris. If it was a gravitational collapse they should have been littering Ground Zero but you can hardly find one anywhere. But you do find TONS of microspheres. Hundreds of tons actually. And in fact, you hardly find any body parts either, because they too were vaporized. Not by ray beams from space… but by the heat waves caused by the ignition of det cord (PETN)

              just look at the RJ Lee Group report. its a real report, not some cobbled together paper, done in the BYU labs, “peer reviewed” by BYU staff and published on a vanity press (did you know the main editor quit due to the publishing of Jones’ ‘report”?)


              WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology”, RJ Lee Group (sorry, it was 2003)

              “As described above, the typical office dust is composed heavily of organic and other carbon-rich particulate materials. WTC Dust, conversely, contains very little pristine organic fibrous or particulate material. Much of the organic or polymeric content of the WT C Dust has been he at hydrolyzed and partially consumed or burned. Therefore, a residual vesicular type of carbonaceous component persists in the WTC Dust. In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components. These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust.”

              that’s the first time they make reference to combustion. it’s page 7

              no where is “nanothermite” mentioned. They state several times that temperatures far exceeded any office fire before it and their task was to determine a fingerprint for the WTC dust so their global banking client could get paid. it is by far and away the best, most comprehensive REAL study done on the dust we have available to us… and yet most have never heard of it… or it’s (pardon the pun) explosive findings. Thanks to Jones

            • allow me to continue:

              “Particles that either were formed as a consequence of high temperature or were modified by exposure to high temperature are important WTC Dust Markers for WTC Dust. Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC Dust”

              “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension .”

              “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension . Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)…

              In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event. Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination…”

              “The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize.”

              WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology”, RJ Lee Group

            • this is det cord. the most commonly used type of explosive used in controlled demolition.

              the fire you see, if it’s PETN, is upwards of 8,000 deg f.


              for perspective, a blast furnace is about 4,500 deg. the average surface temperature of the sun (or it’s general atmospheric) is around 9,929 deg F (or 5772 k according to NASA Sun fact sheet)


              thats what vaporized everything. that’s what vaporized the 60,000 or so trusses and floor pans which should have been stacked up according to the official story but they weren’t they were gone. literally in a flash. 110 of them gone in 16 seconds.

              you think “nanothermite” did that?

  4. It seems to me that what you guys are doing is squabbling among yourselves about the “how.”

    Re: 9/11
    • It is not we who should shoulder the burden of proof of how 9/11 was carried out. We should only forcefully reject the official explanation that requires believing that the laws of physics were suspended for only that event and also demands that we abandon even common sense.
    Maybe nanothermites were used and maybe not, or maybe they were used in conjunction with something else, I don’t really care, not being an engineer.
    Multiple methods may well have been used.
    • “The Jews (i.e., Israel) did it” is neither a satisfactory supposition about the “who” nor is it a complete idiocy to be dismissed for fear of being branded an anti-semite.
    Multiple players with convergent interests may well have been involved.

    Re: Crisis actors
    Just because crisis actors are present/have been identified does not mean there were no real casualties and vice versa. Why does it have to be an exclusionary proposition?

    Re: Conspiracy theories
    Conspiracy theories are of two types: those the official reports present as “facts” with definitive proof always lacking, and those that arise among people trying to understand events that don’t make sense, knowing that we are being systematically and often blatantly lied to. Some of the latter are manufactured with the specific purpose of making ALL conspiracy theories appear absurd. The only way to make our way through the haze and smoke is to have open and honest debates and the benefit of lucid analyses like those Scott offers.

    Re: Freedom of speech
    With the exception of mindless, obscene insults to individuals, groups or religions, which are to a debate what a Tourette fit is to a dialog, unimpeded discussion of any and all “conspiracy theories,” topics and ideas is a legitimate exercise of the freedom of speech.
    Freedom of speech is currently under sustained attack by the very same propagandists who invented the term “denier” as a modern equivalent of “heretic.” They are the Debate Deniers.

    • all of this I have said/written myself and agree with… to a point.

      In terms of “how” not being important, I disagree. When you put forward a theory based on observation, (like the official story is wrong BECAUSE we can all see that the collapse of the THREE buildings didn’t adhere to basic laws of physics) the next step it to put forward a reasonable theorem that explains what we all saw in light of the flaws in the official story. You can’t just toss your hands up and say “well, it could have been controlled demolition OR “nanothermite” OR “ray beams from space” that explains it… “it’s not on us to determine that”

      yes it is.

      if you say the official story is bunk BECAUSE it doesn’t comport to the laws of physics OR the available evidence we have at hand… you better damn well have something CONCRETE to offer up the average person you are addressing because believe it or not, the average person isn’t stupid.

      Like I said in the video… it’s IMPOSSIBLE for Building 7 to have fallen at free fall acceleration. Impossible. Impossible due to regular office fires. All well and good. But not hard evidence. The RJ Lee Report is HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE compiled NOT by “truthers” but by actual scientists doing actual scientific studies of the dust.

      The vaporizing of the steel, concrete, plastics and glass could NOT have happened due to collapse or office fires. Even jet fuel cant do that. But SOMETHING DID. And it did it to EVERY SINGLE FUCKING FLOOR at a rate fast enough to remove entire floors ahead of the falling upper sections of those two buildings.

      That’s hard evidence FACT.

      so there is a difference and you pull it up (right there on the right side of my page on my website) and show it to people you are talking to… I have had countless non-believers tell me they never heard it put to them that way and YES something else MUST have created those micro-spheres and that molten metal.

      so yes I agree with you to a point… but yes, it IS our responsibility to offer an explanation that works with the observable events. One that is grounded in reality. “nanothermite” isn’t and that is why Steven Jones and BYU came up with it. It’s called cognitive infiltration and that is what it is.

  5. Okay, this is getting to be a waste of time for both of us. Yours truly has done volunteer work for Richard Gage’s Architects and Engineers group (passing out material on Market St., San Francisco) and I can say from personal experience that this group supports the Thermite Argument of Jones. Is Richard Gage’s Architects and Engineers AE 9-11 Truth group also compromised?

    What is thermite? It is a mixture of an oxide of a metal and a pure metal of a different type. The oxygen atoms of the oxide break away from the oxide and attack the pure metal. There are different types of thermite, but the most common is iron oxide and pure aluminum. In the fire the oxygen burns the aluminum and pure molten iron is left behind. Thermite has its own oxygen supply — which explains how a super hot fire burned for weeks in the rubble heap. Would a super hot fire burn for weeks as a result of normal high explosives? Do they also have their own oxygen supply?

    Do you deny that iron microspheres are a signature of an iron oxide / aluminum thermite fire?

    Are you sure that these are produced by normal high explosives blowing up steel beams?

    How do you account for the particles of nanothermite found in the WTC dust? Are lies being told?

    To my mind the Thermite Argument is very sound. More than that. It is so sound as to possess scientific certainty.

    Scott, I think you are very good about most things. But I think you are wrong about the Thermite Argument

    • He’s going to be pissed that he got showed up despite his 50 years of 9/11 “research.”

      He will probably ignore your arguments knowing that he lost soundly, and then cite that he doesn’t have time to respond because he has already proved his point. Then maybe he will throw in an ad hominem for good measure, or something to the effect of unfair persecution by paid adversaries.

      [edit: oh look… out little paid troll is back. What is? Persona number 32? And imagine that… our paid troll backing “nanothermite”… who would’ve thunk it]

    • “Is Richard Gage’s Architects and Engineers AE 9-11 Truth group also compromised?”

      Is Gregg Roberts still there with AE for 9/11 Truth? Do you recall reading in my article from 2009 or 2010 that it was Gregg Roberts who Jones put me in touch with and who told me they wouldn’t ever check for high explosive residue in the WTC dust because they thought it would be “bad PR” if they didn’t find it? No? Not anymore? But he was. And as you may or may not know, I was one of the early signers of their petition as I worked in the architectural industry so my name is still on that thing and I am glad I did it all those years ago… and I followed that group for years… so I definitely know the “thermite” debate and Gregg Roberts was very caustic at AE49/11Truth for a while and it caused some original members to leave the organization years ago. Do you remember that? I do.

      You know, most of those questions are answered in the “nanothermite” paper that was only published in that vanity press paper? they themselves admit that the microspheres can be produced by other factors. Why don’t you just read the RJ Lee Report? A scientific certainty? They THEMSELVES say their paper isn’t conclusive and more tests have to be done. They actually say, in the paper itself that someone should test for residues of high explosives having been used in the demolition of the trade center. They even say the “red/grey” chips MIGHT BE “thermetic material’ paint on RUSTED METAL.

      They don’t say there are “particles of nanothermite found in the WTC dust”… they say “thermetic material”. Rust with red primer paint on one side can be “thermitic”. Can actually ignite. And why does it burn the way it does? Because it is infused with oxygen. The primer paint itself is as well (iron oxide). Why do you think they moved from “nanothermite in the ceiling tiles” to “they painted it on the steel structure”?!?!? Because they KNEW it was PRIMER.

      Why in the HELL do you think demolition EXPERTS would use something as SLOW as “thermite” in their demolition process? Used to be folks who backed this story would say “because they didn’t want high explosive residue found in the dust… duh”… and they pushed that storyline up until even Jones himself FINALLY admitted that “super thermite” couldn’t blow up a dog house much less steel beams 6 feet wide by 3 feet deep consisting of 5″ thick steel. Then they said what you have said “it was used in COMBINATION WITH high explosives”… uh… really? So WHY THE HELL USE IT? If they were going to use high explosives in the first place, I guess that does away with the FIRST story we were told doesn’t it?

      Think about it.

      I saw some Jones apologist try to cut some steel with about 3 gallons (dry) of “nanothermite”. Had it set up so that as it SLOWLY burned though some 1/4″ steel plate, the stuff would SLOWLY via gravity drip down onto the steel and it would “cut” through. Took about half a day and it didn’t actually cut the steel cleanly. and it was a 12″ piece. Do you have ANY IDEA how MUCH of that stuff it would take to cut the massive columns of the trade center? all 47 of them? MULTIPLE TIMES?!? Those columns were cut INSTANTLY by high explosive SHAPED CHARGES. They were removed at a pace of about 10 floors per SECOND. All 47 massive steel columns cut in 3-story sections all the way down the full 110 stories of the WTC. You think “nanothermite” could do ANY OF THAT?!?

      Listen… this was a massive undertaking by the best controlled demolition team in the world. They didn’t need “nanothermite” to “weaken the steel”… that’s moronic. They needed high explosive cutter charges to cut the beams, kicker charges to get the cut beams out of the way of the falling debris and det cord to break up the floor systems… it’s called a “top down demolition” and it’s been done before WITHOUT your “nanothermite”

      “Are you sure that these are produced by normal high explosives blowing up steel beams?”

      Yes. An explosive charge like a cutter charge uses superheated plasma like a heated knife which vaporized a thin line of the steel, MELTING IT and causing the iron or structural steel to basically atomize into tiny little spheres of molten metal. But when you place so much det cord in the floor systems to do away with the floors that it actually vaporizes the steel trusses, you have the SAME EFFECT… which explains the “hundreds of tons” of these spheres. Do you understand? Are you even bothering to read what I write?

      The molten steel in the rubble pile is NOT a typical result of controlled demolition but then again… in typical controlled demolition, they don’t use so much det cord in the floor structures. When they did that they vaporized the trusses WHICH CREATED TONS OF MOLTEN METAL. Some ended up cooling under pressure suspended in the air and making the metal micro-spheres… the rest pooled in the rubble, running down metal channels, and burned for weeks. As far as oxygen is concerned… do you really think a pile of rubble is a vaccum?

      This is NOT the best argument. The creators of this thing were paid by BYU to do it and as I have proven, they had Dick Cheney give their commencement speech the YEAR BEFORE IT CAME OUT. It is illogical and a red/grey herring and if you wish to keep spinning that yearn be my guest. Or you can click on the links I provided for you and open your eyes. I’ve done all I can.

      • You are saying that “thermitic material,” as used by Harrit, can mean paint? Clearly, by “thermitic material” as used by Harrit in his paper, he means a substance that involves a metal oxide being in close proximity to a pure metal of a different type than the metal of the oxide, which can produce the distinctive reaction in which the oxygen in the oxide reacts with (or oxidized, or burns) the pure metal that is close to it.

        Chips of nanothermite were definitely found in the WTC dust. That is what the 2009 Harrit paper states.

        As for the fire in the Ground Zero rubble heap, it lasted until December, and for several weeks it burned so hot as to boil metal. You seem to be saying that PETN (high explosive material) was the source of this fire. Well, that rubble heap was not ventilated very well. It seems improbable that a PETN fire, which needs oxgyen from air, could get the air it would need for this extremely hot fire that burned for such a time. With thermite, on the other hand, there is no problem with getting air, because it has its own oxygen supply.

        You also seem to say that in the thermite argument Jones was deliberately fabricating a story for disinformation purposes. You apparently don’t think scientists have much integrity. I think as a group their integrity, when it comes to scientific truth, is extremely good, and Jones wouldn’t have any respect in the scientific community at all if what you are implying were true.

        • I’m sorry Kendra, I know you mean well, but you keep saying ‘nanothermite” was “definitely” found in the dust but the only thing you have as a reference for that is that Niles Harrit paper, which I have shown you was actually paid for by BYU, two of the scientists who worked on it were paid by BYU, Jones was paid by BYU and BYU paid for the publication in the vanity press article. It was peer reviewed by someone mentioned in the paper and by someone else working for BYU. And of course, Dick Cheney gave the commencement speech at BYU in 2007, the year before the publication of the paper. And, as I have shown you, BYU and the Mormons in general, thought it would be a sin in the eyes of God to do ANYTHING that threatened the president’s GWoT. And NO ONE ELSE found “nanothermite” in that dust. It was a red herring. I’m sorry but that’s a fact. Jones? “respect in the scientific community”?!? He was pushing weather modification weapons, earthquake weapons and ray beams from space last time I heard from him. He’s the guy that the Department of Energy got to torpedo cold fusion if you recall. He’s tenured at BYU and they actually gave him a promotion while he was making the “nanothermite” paper. I’m sorry, I know you are attached to this theory, but it just isn’t true. The WTC were brought down by controlled demolition utilizing standard high explosives. and that’s it. “nanothermite” was a distraction then and it is now. stick with the RJ Lee Group report if you want to talk to someone about solid, scientific evidence of controlled demolition. it’s very clear if you read the report

          • Harrit was a tenured professor of chemistry at a university in Copenhagen. You are saying that BYU paid for Harrit’s research? Jones had already been forced to retire from BYU at that time, I think. Honestly, this stuff you are saying sounds paranoid. I am sure that Harrit and Jones were both stating their honest scientific opinions regarding thermite being used in the WTC buildings. I am also sure that Jones was stating his honest scientific opinion when he denied the reality of cold fusion. Scientists are not like politicians. When it comes to scientific truth they have real integrity.

            • Jones admitted BYU paid for the whole thing. Are you not reading the links I provided for you? that’s on you then. and he wasn’t forced to retire. they promoted him to professor emeritus and gave him an office to work in and a staff to do the research… AND JONES ADMITTED ALL OF THAT HIMSELF. if you aren’t going to bother reading the links I provided for you, then we are done here

  6. I think, you’re wrong in this case “No victims = Counter revolution”, because “No victims” means NOT no victims, but no their fake victims in spot lights, rather real victims in shadow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: