Kucinich Drops Out and Doesn't Endorse Anyone

Kucinich Drops Out and Doesn't Endorse Anyone

A Warmongering War President Catapulting the Propaganda

A Warmongering War President Catapulting the Propaganda

Noam Chomsky applauds Senator Gravel's past and present accomplishments

Noam Chomsky applauds Senator Gravel's past and present accomplishments see video.

see video: It's Too Dangerous to Give Hillary Clinton Another Shot

see video: Petty Clinton Omits Gravel, Hillary Shows Her True Colors

Petty Clinton Omits Gravel, Hillary Shows Her True Colors

see video: Petty Clinton Omits Gravel, Hillary Shows Her True Colors

Hillary Clinton showed her true colors by ungraciously omitting Mike Gravel when she listed Presidential Democratic candidates.

Hillary can't even hide her true nature in her acceptance speech. The voice which she says she found in this campaign is a petty and ungracious one.

Hillary once again votes for a resolution concocted as an excuse for another war.
This is crazy. Hillary Clinton's vote brings our country another step closer to war against Iran. Hillary Clinton's experience is pushing us into another war and Mike Gravel calls her on it.

Mike Gravel Says It's Too Dangerous to Give Hillary Clinton Another Shot

see video: It's Too Dangerous to Give Hillary Clinton Another Shot

Edwards Over Obama for the Win

Edwards Over Obama for the Win

IF there was evidence of explosives

IF there was evidence of explosives, why wouldn't the investigators have assumed terrorists planted the explosives? WHY would 200 technical experts, including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia, "know" that they shouldn't say what the evidence supposedly showed? IF they saw indications of "controlled demolition," how would they "know" not to simply say it? Wouldn't they assume that terrorists did it and report it?

This is a question that no "9/11 truther" has answered. IF there really was evidence of controlled demolition, why wouldn't the 200 technical experts simply report it?
No "9/11 truther" has even attempted to give me a scenario in which experts would "know" that they should ignore or suppress the "evidence of controlled demolition."

From what I have read, many who believe in "controlled demolition" insist that NIST is "lying" or "suppressing" the supposed facts. What I am asking is why would they do that? This is one of the big logical flaws of "9/11 truth movement."