Debunked

Jessie Ventura Vs JFK Conspiracy

Whell it wasn´t a question if Ventura should touch the subject, rather a question about when. Is he going for the truth like everyone else that have researched this case and found amazingly new evidence?

Let´s have a look and see what Ventura have found.

Just in the first minutes there are a error, the narrator says:

You thought the case where closed but Jessie Ventura tears it wide open

I will come to why he dosen´t tear it wide open later on, its quite intresting acctually.

Sure it looks great that Saint John Hunt will have to hide in a simple motel because he´s afraid.
In his own words:

The more exposure i get by telling my story, puts me in a greater level of danger.

Of Coruse, Hunt is afraid, he´s in great danger when he speaks about the information that he has. So is this his only appreance? Whell no. Just check saintjohnhunt.com where he sell the truth, isn´t that remarkable if he is afraid and under threat?

The man in the wheelchair gives Ventura some documents, new evidence (very classified) He even sleeps whit a gun under his pillow. Now this is intresting. What could this information to be?
Whell it´s about something called Operation 40, that where going to be used against Castro, but is suspected to have been used against JFK.

First of all, Operation 40 was already mentioned in 1990:s so this is not exactly new evidence, just pure old crap whitout any info about this is true or not.

And finally, of course there is a huge force and conspiracy that Jessie Ventura is not allowed to film at JFK´s gravesite….

The documents on Operation 40 where known already in 1992 when James Earl Jones hosted JFK Conspiracy

And what about Hunt´s confesion, haven´t we heard that storie before?
Whell Nigel Turner made a movie in 1988 called The Men Who killed Kennedy where the CIA is accused for beeing behind the assasination by hiring a french hitman whit the name Lucien Sartie, and what does Hunt´s confession contain?

So, how much is new information after all? But still it can be true, i just don´t like the way the information is presented as new and dangerous, when the information been known for years and people are trying to earn money on this dangerous information.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Targenor - 18 januari 2011 at 12:00

Categories: Conspiracy, Debunked, english, JFK   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Did the driver shoot JFK?

I don´t think i have to debunk this one (the narrator is doing it perfectly) but i must ask how you could belive that Greer shot JFK

Why kill him in public?
Why not kill him on Airforce One and blame it on heartattack?

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Targenor - 08 juli 2010 at 12:00

Categories: Brott & Straff, Conspiracy, Debunked, english, Historia, JFK   Tags: , , , ,

New 9/11 photos ‘prove WTC exploded from inside’

Ok, when i started to wiev this one, i feelt it would be hard to debunk, but whell not really.

There is a couple of intresting things that the man says.

1.The pictures dosen´t show a building that collapses, building that exploded

2.Buildings are litteraly turned into dust, and the only way that happen is by explosions

3.Survivours heard explosions that day

4.Forensic evidence in the debris of the world trade center

If we start whit 1.

Everything that looks like explosions aren´t explosions, the only good reason that the tower feel where because of the damage and that the top fell on the lower floors which didn´t could take it, and collapsed.

2. If something fall down like that, it would brake and become dust, you dont belive that the tower would feel down intact do you?

3. Everything that sounds like bombs aren´t bombs… I bet that there where several things exploding that day, cars, elevators and so on, but no bombs (which bomb whould survive an impact of a airplane?)

4. If there is any forensic evidence for this, why not use them as it should, make a new investigation, turn some rocks so to speak, do they do that? No they just talks about what they ”have” but they can´t prove that what they say are true.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Targenor - 03 april 2010 at 12:00

Categories: Brott & Straff, Conspiracy, Debunked, english, Historia   Tags: , , , ,

9/11 CONSPIRACY: A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION DESTROYED THE WTC!!

This film will leave you in shock

Whell it kind of did, just reading the info about the movie was scary enough

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Bush also served.
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center ”up to the day the buildings fell down.”

Marvin P. Bush had nothing to do whit World Trade Center….
But hey, why bother whit the truth, it sounds good atleast.

Jonathan Barnett Professor in Fire Protection Enginering

In a normal fire we don´t have building collapses

Whell thats true, but sometime have to bee the first, it also is a question on how much the steel can carry when it gets hot… a clue it looses the abillity to carry long before it melts.

Then there is more talk about explosions, thousands of explosives placed around the building, and it all survvived the planechrash ?
Why didn´t the towers feel at once?

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Targenor - 02 april 2010 at 12:00

Categories: Brott & Straff, Conspiracy, Debunked, english, Historia   Tags: , , , ,

9/11 CONSPIRACY – FDNY: ”there is a bomb in the building”

This one would have been good if it where true, someone finally had SEEN a bomb that day, all other just spoke about bombs or claimed to heard explosions.

But this isn´t true, he is talking about a school located close to the towers. And it was after the towers had fallen.
Also intresting to se (if this where true) how someone could have the nerv to work as a firefighter knowing that he would risk his life due to it was a bomb close to his worksite?

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Targenor - 01 april 2010 at 12:00

Categories: Brott & Straff, Conspiracy, Debunked, english, Historia   Tags: , , , ,

911 Clues EVERYONE MISSED

Tries to fool people, by using ”It was aired on tv very quickly, therefore it was a wellprepared attack which many people knew about.

Lets see what it says more,

”The wittnes is a paid actor”

Whell this was a suprise, trying to discredite wittness which not tell the story the person behind making the clip wants to hear.

”Called Ace Baker – suprisingly similar to ”Able Baker”

Why should they use so similar names it would only give themselfs away.
So no there isn´t much evidence in the ”paid actor” theory

And then the question, How did he know all this, since the collapse already happened?

This is a very stupid question acctually.
If a car collides whit a tree and the driver is dead, should we then think that he died from a sharkbait ?

The thing that happened here, is called analysis, you see something a you tell what you see.

Ok, next question in this movie.

Structure failure, Wouldn´t bombs be a more likely scenario since WTC was bombed in 1993?

No it wouldn´t, this is where the creator of the film tries to show his own theories.
The man didn´t hear any explosions, didn´t see any explosions, so why should he bleive that

Firemen and engieneers didn´t understand the collapse but this bozo on the street did?

That firemen didn´t understand it is quite obvius, they aren´t trained in that way.
The next question needs more information, which engineers and when did they not understand the collapse?
Here the creator is whitholding information in a effort to save his cause.

He ”witnessed” the both towers collapes?
”Due to structural failure?”
”Who talks like that?”

Ok, what does the maker of the movie know about this person, since he tries to discredite this person so much whitout so far not publishing any evidence for his claims

Next step is ”Whos is this guy”?

Once again he is claimed to been a actor that was paied for beeing a eywittnes.

”Off all eye wittness on the scene why was he chosen to tell the story?”

Whell the answer is obviusly, he had a falling actor carrer, and did this for money.

So far he hasn´t proved that this guy is a actor, never the less paid to tell the story, just pure bullshit.

”Everyone else was in shock, but this guy sounds like an infomercial (correction TV actor) actor”

Yeah, he sounds, but that dosen´t prove a thing.

Then the movie repeats once again.

Then there is time for the next ”Clue”, presenting no evidence what so ever for the first claim being true.

Clue #2

”Where did he get all this from before any studies where done?”

He told what he did se, and belive.
Just going down this road as the creator does is dangerous, such a big conspiracy as this wouldn´t have lived for long, since people would have talked.

”No watch him change the subject”

How do we know he changed the subject?
How do we know that the creator didn´t ”clipp” the movie?

”Note the emotion-laden buzzwords”

Whell he is talking about sad and tragic things, shouldn´t that be emotional, if he where in on it he would have talked whitout the emotions.

”Rescue Workers”
”Heroes”
”Policemen and firemen”
”Incalcuable loss”

”The Method”
”Sell the lie whit authority, then change the subject to something emotional”

Whell, but where is the proof that this person where in on it?

And then, one more time.

”Then the guy is expert on Bin Laden”

Whell the problem is not a problem here, when something happens newsdesks tend to invite people whit knowledge, and still there is now evidence that he, knew of the attacks in advance.

Ok, then we point him out as lier since we don´t know what he´s talking about

”So who is this expert, who knows so much about Bin Laden and falling buildings and is on CBS the morning of 9/11?

”Jerome Hauer”

”Bio-Warfare Expert”
”Drug Company Director”
”Bush Administration Insider”
”and a lot more….”

What more is the creator talking about?
He hasn´t proved a thing.

”But here´s the introduction that Dan Rather was given to read”

And no more information, but quickly jumping to Cover Story #3

Ok, Clue number #3

”More information about Bin Laden, that was aired 9:34 EST”
”This was only 33 Minutes after the second tower was hit”

Not that much evidence, USA knew about Bin Laden for many years before the attacks, Bill Clinton wanted to chase Bin Laden whit tomahawk misslies for one thing.
So of course did people knew alot of Bin Laden

”Who wrote this elaborate story and got it on air so quickly?”

No answer to that question, the creator want´s to show something more….

Lets see what that is, shall we?

”Mud huts, tent cities and caves, a rich fanatics threat to U.S, Fire causes steel buildings to collapse”

Ok, here the creator leaves out one thing in the tv speech, a very important thing that acctually maters.

”At one time, the US had him under satelite surveliance”
So if the US used this method, shouldn´t they then know things about him?

”The complete set of 9/11 myths were all laid down in the first hour after the attacks by the U.S mass media”
Still no proof of this, but the creator makes a point for himself when he thinks that many people where involved in the attacks.
and still no one have come forward and talked, funny.

”Did this all happen by itself or were these stories prepeared long before the attacks started?”
They wheren´t prepeared, its fun to watch people saying things where prepared when they ”speak their langauge”, what they belive in, but not the otherway around.

”Think about it”
Whats to think about?
You making a video claiming things that isn´t true, and you don´t know what you are talking about?

Then all three clues playes once again….

The creator has failed to prove anything

”Turn off your TV”
”Turn on Brasscheck”

Ok, what is Brasscheck?
Why should we turn on Brasscheck?
To recive even more lies and disinformation, whitout any evidence?

That was 9 minutes and 41 seconds that i spent watchinh pure bullshit, sadly it won´t be the last time……

Club4Beauty.se

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Targenor - 15 januari 2010 at 20:30

Categories: Brott & Straff, Conspiracy, Debunked, english, Historia   Tags: , , , ,

Steve Jones is discussing the molten metal found under WTC

This is quite intressting acctually.

Jones is speaking about it beeing from the planes, but why should it bee?


Its more likely it come there during the rescue operation. so that where acctually no proof to anything.
There is also nothing that could keep mealted metal in that condition for so long.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Targenor - 14 januari 2010 at 4:00

Categories: Brott & Straff, Conspiracy, Debunked, english, Historia   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The 9/11 that can´t be debunked

This is intressting, the point of the video is the ”explosion sounds” that is heard in the begining of the movie.

But is it that hard to debunk?
No, really not.

All ”explosions sounds” is not bombs, it could also be something inside the towers that exploded, for example gastubes.

Then there is also alot of speculations in the video, ”They think….” ”they belive…” so there is no hard evidence.

If they had asked the question ”Could this loud sounds be bombs?” then it would have been harder to debunk.

You must also understand that there where caos that day, very much where suspicions, and no one knew for sure what happened untill long after it really happened, so there could also be alot of ”bullshit”

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Targenor - 26 december 2009 at 17:10

Categories: Brott & Straff, Conspiracy, Debunked, english, Historia   Tags: , , , ,

9/11 was an Inside Job for 10,000 reasons – WTC 7 – Operation Northwoods

Ok, this video dosen´t prove a singel piece of Insidejob, its just a comercial for a website.

And no, operation Northwoods wasn´t used in the attacks
Its funny to se that people thinks that Bush are stupid, but cleaver enough to do this kind of attacks.

Operation Northwoods where made public on the internet about a half year before the attacks, this idea of this plan beeing used is the same as the ”no hijackers on the passenger lists theory”, everyone could have found this information and made then revealed the entire case, wouldn´t USA have done a better job?

Operation Northwoods only shows what the USA is capable of planing, but it dosen´t mean it has been that plan that where used.

The previously secret document was originally made public on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board,[2] a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy’s assassination.[3][4][5][6][7] A total 1521 pages of once-secret military records covering 1962 to 1964 were concomitantly declassified by said Review Board.

The Northwoods document was published online in a more complete form (i.e., including cover memoranda) by the National Security Archive on April 30, 2001.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Targenor - 20 december 2009 at 2:00

Categories: Brott & Straff, Conspiracy, Debunked, english, Historia   Tags: , , , ,

Did a 757 really hit the pentagon on 911?

This video accutally nothing to se, claims that it wasn´t a 757 that hit Pentagon.

Why isn´t it something to se?
Whell, the wreckage that where found was from a 757, and nothing else.
Could it be placed? No, it can´t, look at pictures of the Pentagon, there is many huge roads around and someone would have noticed something

And there is a ”lie” in this video to, the narator says ”we couldn´t find any reconigseble debris from a 757, whell how odd…

Could it be placed? No, it can´t, look at pictures of the Pentagon, there is many huge roads around and someone would have noticed something

And there is a ”lie” in this video to, the narator says ”we couldn´t find any reconigseble debris from a 757, whell how odd… DNA from the passengers where found, etc etc…..

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Targenor - 16 december 2009 at 2:00

Categories: Brott & Straff, Conspiracy, Debunked, english, Historia   Tags: , , , ,

Nästa sida »