9/11 Truth - We’ve got the BBC on the run 9 / 11真理-我们已经准备好英国广播公司就办
By Mick Meaney由米克meaney
RINF Alternative News rinf另类新闻
Since July 2007 British scientist, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and自2007年7月英国科学家委员，学者，为9 / 11真理及公义和 RINF science correspondent rinf科学通讯员 , John A. Blacker, has been in an约翰甲黑，一直在 ongoing battle with the BBC正在进行的这场与英国广播公司 over their lie infested hit piece programme ‘9/11: The Conspiracy Files’, which aired in February 2007 and was designed to present an unfair view of the 9/11 truth movement and prominent researchers.他们所在为患击中一块计划9 / 11 ：阴谋文件' ，它肯定了2007年2月，被设计了一个不公平的看法9 / 11真理运动和突出的研究人员。 Mr Blacker is currently in ‘pre-action protocol’ with the BBC, meaning they have to try and settle the argument out of court.黑先生目前正处于预行动议定书'与英国广播公司，这意味着他们必须设法解决的说法离法庭。
In this latest update, Mr Blacker has been informed of a scheduled meeting, due to take place in October which has now been pushed back further to late November.在这份最新更新议员，黑已被告知预定的会议上，由于发生在十月如今已被推迟至11月下旬。 This is the third time the BBC has bought more time by delaying the meeting.这已是第三次英国广播公司已经购买了更多的时间，延迟了会议。 A clear sign they are struggling to piece together a legal case to defend their actions.一个明显迹象，他们正在努力拼凑一个法律案，以保卫自己的行动负责。
With the BBC desperately on the run, I am making available the latest letter Mr Blacker has sent them, in which he pin points even more of the faults contained in the programme and demands an apology for their blatant lies as their hit piece is a complete disrespect to the truth and an insult to all who died on 9/11.与英国广播公司拼命对我们来说，我提供的最新信先生，黑已寄给他们，他在其中销点，甚至更多的故障情况载于方案，并要求道歉，为他们赤裸裸的谎言为自己击中一块，是一个完整的不敬真相与侮辱了所有的人死亡， 9 / 11 。
Please take the time to read the letter published below.请花时间阅读这封信刊登如下。 As stated many months ago,正如很多个月前， RINF Alternative News rinf另类新闻 will not allow this issue to be dropped and we’ve only just begun the battle to see justice prevail and the BBC admit it is guilty of mass public deception in a court of law.不会允许这一问题再下降，我们现在才刚刚开始的战斗中看到正义得以伸张和BBC承认它是有罪的大众欺骗手段在法庭上的法律。
Pre action for damages without prejudice. 会前，要求赔偿，没有偏见。
Thursday, 08 November 2007周四， 2007年11月8日
Dear Chairman,亲爱的主席，
Thank you for your letter dated 31 October 2007 and the 6 section Cover notes for appeal of which accompanied said.谢谢你的来信日期为2007年10月31日和6节封面注释上诉，其中伴随着说。
Firstly I request and Expect each and every member of the decision panel to disclose their affiliations such as to “Common Purpose” “Masons” etc, etc and to forward said disclosure to the Chair.首先，我的要求和期望每一个成员的决定，小组透露自己的背景，例如以"共同目的" ， "泥水匠"等等，等等，并提出披露说，为了主持会议。 I am a member of AE911 truth, STJ911 truth and also ST911 truth, I am not currently a member of any political party & I am 1 of three professional partners of Physical Systems, Lancaster England & a qualified Physicist & Mechanical Engineer.我是会员ae911真理， stj911真相，并st911实话，我目前还不是任何政党的成员，与我的第1 3个专业合作伙伴的物理系统，兰卡斯特英格兰与一名合格的物理学家和机械工程师。
I shall be going through the folder you sent in order stating from section 1 and making my comments & observations as I proceed if I may, as this is the first opportunity I have been given to these information resources in their current format.我会翻看你的文件夹发送为了说明，从第1条为使我的评论与意见，正如我，如果我可以的话，因为这是我第一次有机会得到这些信息资源，其目前的格式。
SECTION 1第1条
(1) The Item （ 1 ）项目
The Conspiracy files team spoke to and recorded the testimony of many eyewitnesses, fire fighters, police officers, and public high witnesses, plus also officialdom high witnesses and had access to written testimony from many high witnesses via official sites on the WWW.阴谋档案小组发言和记录的证词，许多目击者，消防战士，武警官兵和市民高证人，再加上还官场高证人，并已获得一份书面证词中，从许多高证人透过官方网站上的WWW 。
YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE.然而，没有一个单一的高级目击者介绍，在纪录片中，把真理的角度来看。
If the documentary was not biases — WHY not one?如果纪录片没有偏见-为什么不呢？
Take for example the evidence of Fire CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE who states on page 15 of the official report given to official government 911 investigators quote:采取例如证据的消防队长陈琼deshore人国第15页的官方报告给政府官方911调查引述如下：
“SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD "某地靠近中的世界
TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH贸易中心有这个橙色和红色闪光
COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN走出来，最初它只是一个闪光，然后
THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE这个Flash只是一直未还清所有道路周围
BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE建设，并建设已开始爆发了
POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS啪声，并与每个啪声，它是
INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF最初是一个橘子，然后红色闪光出来的
THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE建筑，然后将去全国各地
BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE建设对双方而言，可以看到这些
POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER啪声和爆炸愈来愈大
GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE既要向上和向下，然后在全国各地
BUILDING”建设"
What sort of research did the BBC team do?什么样的研究，有没有BBC的团队做什么呢？ How can a documentary ignore such clear damming evidence?怎样才能纪录片无视这种明确筑坝证据？
WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF SELECTING INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC?什么是实际的挑选过程的资料，以便向公众交代？
What checks and balances ensured impartiality & the delivery of FACTUAL & accurate information worthy of a BBC Documentary & BBC viewers ?????什么制衡，确保公正与交付的事实及准确的资料，不愧为英国广播公司的纪录片＆ BBC的观众?????
Alex Jones stated that he was filmed for many many hours and forwarded documentary proof upon proof to the BBC documentary team, yet all of that proof was ignored in favour of what was shown – why?徐家琼斯说，他拍了很多很多时间，并转交的证明文件，证明后，向英国广播公司的纪录片队伍，但所有的证据被忽视，赞成什么，是显示了-为什么？ What selection criteria was used, if not to deliberately select out everything which was conclusive in favour of what was actually shown – which was nothing more than Hearsay, Opinion & NEGATIVE Stereotyping of truth members.什么遴选标准是用，如果不是刻意选择了一切，这是决定性的赞成什么，实际上是表明-这是什么以上传闻，舆论及负面定型真理的成员。
High witnesses, actual Fire fighters and actual police were ignored by the BBC crew in favour of 3rd hand 3rd rate information.高证人，但实际的消防战士和实际警方不被理会，英国广播公司船员赞成第3次手第三届率资料。 Why?为什么呢？ Where is the journalistic integrity in this so called documentary?哪里是新闻的完整性，在这个所谓的纪录片？
Prof Jim Fetzer states the BBC team recorded many hours with him yet showed next to nothing of what he explained were the key science issues of the truth movement & the key evidence – why – what has the BBC got to hide – perhaps the FACTS???吉姆教授费策尔国英国广播公司团队记录了很多时间与他尚未发现旁边没有什么他解释，人的关键科学问题的真相运动＆关键证据-为什么-什么英国广播公司得到隐藏-这也许是事实吗？ ？
Why was all of this key evidence censored?为什么所有这一切的关键证据截断？
(2.1) （ 2.1 ）
The truth movement真相运动
A point which is missing, is the fact NO actual Physics was mentioned either to back the official government (Physically Impossible) lies, or more importantly, to explain why so many informed “intelligent” professional people do not believe the government lies because the official story simply defies the laws of physics.这一点缺失，是一个事实，没有任何实际物理所提到要么回到政府官方（实际上不可能）的谎言，或者更重要的是，以解释为何有这么多的通知"智慧型"专业人士不相信政府的谎言，因为官方故事简单违抗物理定律。
1 There was not enough energy in the “collapse sequence” to turn the 300,000 tonnes of concrete and all of the floor panels to DUST – by a factor of at least 10. 一 ，现在还没有足够的能源，在"崩溃序列" ，把30万吨混凝土和所有的楼面板，以尘-由一个因素，至少1 0个。
2 3 buildings came to ground at near freefall; hence the undamaged, heaviest and strongest lower floors offered near zero resistance which was consistent with falling through clear AIR only. 三月二日建筑物来到地面上近freefall ，因此完好无损的，最重和最强烈的低层提供接近零电阻现象是一致的下降，通过明确的空气而已。
3 Falling bodies never take the path of greatest resistance, EVER, always the path of least resistance only! 三降机构从未采取的道路上的最大阻力，任何时候都始终阻力最小的方向只有！ (without exception) （无例外）
4 A 757 simply can not fit through a 20 foot hole at the Pentagon – the program did not show the hole prior to collapse at the Pentagon, but misled the public into thinking the Jet had caused the damage after collapse. 4 757个，根本不能容纳20呎孔在五角大楼-这项计划并没有显示该洞之前崩溃，在五角大楼的，但也误导了公众，使他们认为飞机已经造成了损害之后崩溃。 (TOTAL DECEIT) （总欺骗）
I will stick to just 4 points here, however there are more, please see the actual correspondence from myself re key omissions of key & important points.我会坚持到只有4分，在这里，但有更多的情况，请参阅实际信件从自己重新关键遗漏的关键与重点。
The Collapse of the twin towers.倒塌的双塔。
There was not a single mention that NIST, who were hired by the US government to explain why the towers came to ground – did not cover the actual collapse sequence AT ALL.现在还没有一个单一何况NIST的，他们聘请了由美国政府解释为何水塔来到地面-不掩盖实际崩溃序列都没有。
The NIST report’s title was: NIST的报告的标题是：
“Final report on the collapse of the world trade centre towers.” "最后报告就倒塌的世界贸易中心大楼" 。
Yet the official report did not actually even mention the “collapse” of the world trade centre towers or anything to do with building 007 (demolition 003).尚未正式报告实际上并没有，甚至提到"崩盘"的世界贸易中心大楼或任何与建设007 （拆卸003 ） 。
In summary MANY pieces of KEY DAMMING information were deliberately and methodically left out or deliberately & methodically removed from the documentary during editing because they were far too conclusive, and far too damaging to the official government lies peddled by this BBC documentary.总之多条主要筑坝信息被蓄意和有条不紊遗漏或故意＆有条不紊地清除出纪录片，在编辑，因为他们太定论，而且太有损政府官方谎言推销这BBC的纪录片。 Instead of reporting the bread & butter truth issues the program was bulked out with nonsense from a science fiction writer and some really dodgy reporting from “Popular Mechanics” et al who gave not one slither of proof to the statements they made.而非报告面包与牛油真理的问题，这一项目是膨体与胡说，从科幻小说作家和一些真正dodgy报告，由"大众机械师"等人，他们给一个没有地震的举证陈述，他们取得了。
NOT a single first hand account was shown or mentioned – why?没有一个单一的第一手帐户被证明或提及-为什么？ What process lead to no first hand accounts being selected or deemed worthy to be included or reported on in what was supposed to be a factual documentary?什么过程导致没有第一手的帐户被选中或当作值得被列入或报道，在什么初衷只是一个事实的纪录片？
SECTION 002 correction:第002更正：
A second version of the letter dated 07/072007 was sent to the BBC via email to replace the one with hand written maths, this second version had typo corrections and also clearer printed maths which was better suited to publication online for the whole world to see.第二个版本的函件072007分之07被送往英国广播公司通过电子邮件，以取代一个与手写数学，这第二个版本有错字改正，并还印有清晰的数学，这是更适合于在网上发布，为整个世界看到。
http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/st911-scientist-to-sue-bbc-for-public-deception/776/
SECTION 3第3条
The original letter was intended to pursue action for damages and apology.原来这封信是打算继续要求赔偿和道歉。
The response by the BBC was very positive as can be seen from the reply letters and it was at this point felt that whilst the documentary was a piece of yellow journalism designed to discredit the truth movement, it was perhaps not necessarily targeting and singling out any would be qualified scientist who was prepared to take a closer look at the evidence in detail, although it certainly did not encourage closer scrutiny as any fair and balanced documentary (considering all the evidence there is) should promote.响应由英国广播公司，是非常积极的作为可以看出，从答复信件，也正是在这一点感觉，虽然纪录片是一块黄色新闻，旨在抹黑真相运动，它也许不一定瞄准和挑出任何将有资格的科学家，他们准备采取仔细看看证据细节，但它肯定是不鼓励更详细，因为任何公正和平衡的纪录片（考虑过所有证据有）应促进。
NOTE: What is the point of a BBC documentary if it does not promote learning and further research into the subject matter, as opposed to just reinforcing the “Physically Impossible” government lies?注：什么是点的英国广播公司的纪录片，如果不推动学习和深入研究此事，与之相反，只是强化"身体是不可能的"政府之所在？
As such after this point the Apology (for total public deception) and hopefully another program incorporating the actual key evidence and the actual first hand High witness testimony, would suffice.这样经过了这一点道歉（占总公共欺骗） ，并希望在另一个程序，把实际的关键证据和实际的第一手高证人证言，书证，就足够了。
May I complement the team on what was visually, an excellent piece, the problem lies with the integrity of other aspects of the program as stated in correspondence, including this.我想补充团队什么是弱视，优良的一块，但问题在于与完整性等方面的计划是在函授，包括本。
SECTIONS 4.第4 。
Fine罚款
SECTION 5.第5条。
On page 2.第2页。
“If a large passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon ….. "如果一个大型客机撞向五角大楼… .. why was the hole in the exterior wall apparently so small?”为什么是孔，在外墙表面上这么小" ？
Whilst this script was being spoken, Images of the damage at the pentagon was being flashed, the problem is, it shows the damage AFTER collapse, as being the actual damaged caused by the Jet impact.虽然这个剧本正在发言，形象的损害在五角大楼正在闪过，但问题是，它显示了损害崩溃后，作为实际受损所造成的射流冲击。 Only a knowledgeable person would know the image shown was “After Collapse” some 20 minutes later, and was not the damage caused by the jet impact as the sequence implies.只有有见识的人都会知道的影像显示"崩溃后， "大约20多分钟后，并没有造成损害的射流影响，因为本序列意味。
If only the 20 ft hole and the pre collapse images had been shown then this would have been honest journalism.如果只20英尺孔和预崩溃图象已被证明是那么这将被诚实的新闻。 As a result of confusing the viewer by flashing what was dishonest journalism and having those post collapse images associated with the initial jet impact, which was reinforced by the way in which the viewer was fed words and images together – this is propaganda Yellow Journalism portraying FALSE FACTS DECEPTION by stealth.由于混乱，让观众由闪动什么是不诚实的新闻后，那些倒塌后的图像与初始射流的影响，这是增强以何种方式让观众被美联储的言论和图像在一起-这是宣传黄河新闻描绘虚假事实欺骗隐形。
On page 2 again,第2页，
“Could a controlled demolition have caused this building to collapse at the World Trade Centre?” "可控制的拆卸，造成这座大楼倒塌，在世界贸易中心" ？
How misleading could one short question statement & video combination be?如何误导的，可以一简短问题，声明与录像相结合呢？ The viewer sees a 47 story steel framed building descending straight down at near freefall of which is not one of the twin towers, it is not called by its name, Building WTC007, and the viewer is not informed the building came to ground on the actual day of 911 into its own footprint at near freefall speed.观众看到一个47层钢骨架大楼直降下来，在近freefall的是，没有一个双子塔，它是不是所谓的由它的名字，建设wtc007 ，和观众是没有告知建设来到地面上的实际一天911到自己的足迹，在不久的freefall速度。
Seeing as most of the population only know that 2 tall buildings were destroyed on the day of 911, would it not be honest journalism to actually name the building and mention the particular circumstances of which the building came to ground and of which is key to the truth movement perspective at the very least?看到，由于大部分人口只知道二高大建筑物被摧毁，在当天的911 ，这岂不是诚实的新闻工作，以实际名称建设及提的特定情况，其中建筑来到地面，其中的关键是向真理运动的角度来看，在最低限度？
Again this is an example of deception by KEY FACT OMMISION.这又是一个例子，欺骗关键的事实遗漏。
On Page 12第12页
19:22 into the documentary - the images are not of 5 Alleged Hijackers arriving and checking in at Dulles airport as the commentary suggests, but are in fact 2 young men checking in hundreds of miles from DULLES at 5.45:08 on 9-11-01 in a an alleged link flight. 19时22分进入纪录片-影像是不是5据称劫机者抵达，并在检查，在杜勒斯机场作为评建议，但在事实2年轻男子在检查数百英里，从杜勒斯在5 .45:08对9 -11- 01的一个指称链飞行。
Why was the misleading CCTV image used to totally deceive the unsuspecting Public viewer in combination with misleading narration?为什么被误导的闭路电视图像用完全欺骗不知情的市民观众结合误导叙事？ Why was the genuine actual image not shown, if they exist?为什么是真正的实际图像没有显示，如果它们存在吗？
On Page 13.第13页。
Minutes later the façade of the building collapsed.分钟后，门面部分坍塌。
The military say there was limited damage to the exterior wall, ……cont军方说，是有限的损害，从而影响外墙， … …承
NO mention was made of the no fly zone around the pentagon and how large it is.没有提到了这个禁飞区靠近五角大楼以及如何庞大，因此是。 No mention was made of the two rings of ground to air missile defence.没有提到了两个戒指，地面防空导弹防御系统。 No mention was made of the fact if any unauthorised aircraft reaches the outer zone jets are automatically scrambled to intercept and take under 10 seconds (YES UNDER 10 seconds) from lift-off to reach the Pentagon.没有提到了一个事实，如果有任何未经批准的航空器到达外区喉会自动紧急升空拦截，并采取下10秒（是10秒内）由剥离，以达到五角大楼。 No mention that if the unauthorised aircraft reaches the inner zone, regardless of transponder on or off, the missile batteries shoot until the target is destroyed.没有提到，如果未经批准的航空器到达内区，不论转发器或关闭，导弹发射架射击，直到目标被摧毁。
These key omissions are clear evidence of deliberate bias in reporting by omitting key information essential for the viewer to make a knowledgeable informed assessment of the Pentagon FACTS.这些关键性的遗漏，清楚表明了故意偏向报告漏报的关键信息，对于收视者，使有识者知情评估五角大楼的事实。
On Page 14.第14页。
21:19 into the documentary an engineer states: “What I usually say is that is Bullshit, but what I’ll say is that it’s just flawed people that have something to dream about to make a name for themselves. 21时19分进入纪录片一位工程师说： "我通常说的是，是bullshit ，但我可以说的是，这只是个有缺陷的人说，有一些梦想，打算做一个名字为自己。 It’s absolutely not true.这是绝对不正确的。
NOTE: AT no point in this Engineers statement does he once mention a 757 or large JET as hitting the Pentagon.注：在任何时候，在这个工程师的声明，他是否曾提及一个757或大型客机由于撞击五角大楼。 A plane & plane wreckage at the pentagon is not the same as 757 plane wreckage at the Pentagon, indeed, there was an engine and plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.飞机和飞机残骸在五角大楼是不一样的757架飞机的残骸在五角大楼，而事实上，有一个引擎和飞机残骸发现，在五角大楼。
This part of the documentary has to be one of the most deceitful parts.这部分的纪录片，已成为一个最骗人的部分。 Pardon the pun.原谅盼盼。
Firstly the actual question relating to 757 wreckage was never put to the engineer on camera, for all the viewer knows the BBC crew could have asked the Engineer absolutely anything.首先实际问题中涉及757残骸从未向工程师在镜头前，为所有观众知道，英国广播公司机组人员能已要求工程师绝对什么。
And What exactly is “ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE”?以及何谓"绝对不正确" ？
The journalism here is of the lowest possible quality and is clearly “YELLOW” and a deliberate attempt to make members of the truth movement who question the evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon - look ridiculous - and not actually get to the bottom of the saga via irrefutable evidence etc.新闻在这里是尽可能以最低的质量和明显是"黄色" ，并蓄意企图使委员的真相运动人士的不满，质疑证据一757在五角大楼-看看荒谬的-而不是其实细究起来，嵯峨经不可辩驳的证据等。
A motorcycle fuel tank & bike parts (small engine & wheels) at a crash scene is not evidence of a Wagon has crashed.一辆电单车油箱及自行车零件（小型发动机和轮子） ，在飞机坠毁的现场，是没有证据的一车已坠毁。
EVEN the Engineer did not say he witnessed ANY parts off a 757 or large Jet - to suggest a qualified Engineer would not know the difference between parts off a BIG jet and parts off a small one would be the height of stupidity.连工程师并没有说，他亲眼看到任何部分掀起757或大型喷气-提出一个合格的工程师并不知道之间的差额部分，小康的一大喉及零件过小，将成为高度愚蠢的行为。
It would be like saying an Engineer would not know the difference between a motorcycle & a wagon engine or Motorcycle & wagon wheel.这样做就像是说，一个工程师不会知道区别摩托车和一车发动机或摩托车和货车车轮。
So why did the BBC journalists not ask for specifics, such as how large were the parts etc, could the parts have come off a 757 or large jet, were they large enough to fit a 757?为什么没有英国广播公司记者不要求具体，例如如何大都是零件等，可以部分来掀起757或大型客机，他们大到足以适合757吗？
On Page 17.第17页。
The pilot Steve O’ Brien not once states he observed a 757, does anyone suppose he would not know a 757?飞行员史蒂夫澳brien不只一次国，他观察到一个757 ，难道有人猜想他不会知道757吗？ The man is a trained observer who’s job it is to know and identify every type of aircraft without exception, does anyone think he would not state 757 if he had actually observed a 757 at his 12 o clock?该名男子是一个训练有素的观察员，他们的工作就是要知道，并找出每一个类型的飞机，没有例外，没有人认为他会不涉及国家757 ，如果他真的看到一个757 ，在他12 o时钟？
If he was on a routine flight do you suppose a USAF pilot or any other pilot would not know that the Pentagon was in a defended air exclusion zone and off limits to unauthorised non military planes.如果他是在一次例行飞行，你假设一份美国空军飞行员或任何其他飞行员都不知道说，五角大楼是在捍卫空气专属区和小康限制未经批准的非军用飞机。 Why did he not mention this in his video statement?他为什么不提这在他的录像讲话？
Does anyone think a 500mph 757 is not the easiest target for a missile defence system to shoot down?难道有人认为500英里每小时757并非一件简单的目标，为导弹防御系统击落？
Why were none of these types of questions put to the pilot as these and many like them had been informed to the BBC crew by Prof Fetzer and Alex Jones?为什么没有这些类型的问题付诸试验，因为这些和许多像他们已获悉此向英国广播公司船员所教授费策尔和徐家琼斯？
Is there anybody alive who believes commercial jets are permitted to pull 4 G turns by the onboard fly by wire system?是否有任何生还者认为，商用飞机被允许拉4克轮流由机载飞线制？
In conclusion the Conspiracy Files Documentary was a work of Total Public deception from start to end, perfectly crafted to stealthily deceive and forward nothing which was conclusive either one way or the other, in other words, perfect propaganda YELLOW journalism by stealth, omission & deception.在结论阴谋的档案文献，是一项工作，占公共欺骗手段从开始到结束，完全可以设计到悄悄欺骗和着什么是决定性的其中一项方法或其他，换句话说，完善宣传黄色新闻隐身，遗漏及受骗。
Kind regards亲切问候。
JA Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)(Lancaster England)司法机构政务长黑海安IMI公司（物理系统） （兰卡斯特英格兰）
PS: Why was Prof Judy Wood not asked to explain the 911 physics? PS ：如果为什么教授朱迪伍德没有要求解释911物理？
False Flag 虚假国旗 Section has more related reports 科更多相关报道 Help keep RINF going..有利于保持rinf去..Comment on '9/11 Truth - We’ve got the BBC on the run' : 评论9 / 11真理-我们已经准备好英国广播公司对我们来说' ：
Related News: 相关新闻：
