To the asker above.
Regarding the newspapers - I would be pleased to provide you the exact date, but, unfortunately, it was more than 25 years ago. I really can't remember now exactly. Besides, you could presume that the 'good guys' are not so stupid either - if they went as far as re-printing ALL post-9/11 dictionaries (to modify meaning of 'ground zero'), don't you think that they also ransacked all libraries and all patent offices (I dare to claim that the Controlled Demolition Inc also held nothing less than a patent for their nuclear demolition know-how which is very unlikely to be found now, considering circumstances)? However, I have no obligation to provide such an evidence as you demand – be thankful for that I was able to recollect that I saw that thing in US newspapers. Imagine that it is not the main part of my evidence. First of all I might omit mentioning that I saw it in the US newspapers (since I can’t remember details exactly) and in this case I would not have any obligation to substantiate this. However, I preferred to mention it, because I really remember it – perhaps someone else in US would recollect it too (and at least two of my watchers recollected it, at least). But it does not mean at all that I have any obligation to provide you an actual newspaper. You demand is simply too much. Just try to use your common sense – if I preferred NOT to mention about the newspapers during the interview, it would definitely relieve me from obliging claims like yours, but it by no means would diminish any credibility of my explanation in general. I would, still, be able to prove that the WTC was demolished by the nukes – firstly, because I successfully explained the actual mechanics of the WTC pulverization and collapse (and it is pretty self-evident); secondly – because I pointed it out that only places of nuclear explosions were called ‘ground zero’ in pre-9/11 US tradition; and as a further proof I demonstrated that the US government has even attempted to re-define the ‘ground zero’ meaning in all post-9/11 dictionaries. Should be enough, I think. You demand to provide exact details in regard to 25 years old newspaper is nothing but redundant, to say the least.

Regarding your doubts that I allegedly want to ‘muddy waters’ and so to get the US authorities out of the hook (or so you implied). You have to understand first of all, that the rules of justice shall be applicable even to the worst of the worst criminals. If Bush and Co. were not manly enough to do ‘the right thing’ (meaning to commit suicide) after the demolished the WTC by mistake, and if the were cowardly enough not to admit it and even to send gullible ground zero responders to their certain death, this say a lot. I do admit that the Bush administration, as well as some officials in the military, CIA, FBI, and in some local administration are cowardly criminals who have to be punished for all they did. However, I still maintain that it was NOT the US officials who planned the 9/11 – they were simply tricked into it by a very clever set-up by the real 9/11 planners. Whether you like it or not, I do not care. I still believe this. Just as a logical proof I could provide you this point. Suppose, Bush and Co. were looking for a pretext to attack ‘oil rich states’ and lay their hands on their oil or whatever. In addition, they badly need to get rid of the Twin Towers, because of some commercial reason. You have to realize, that in this case they DID NOT NEED to nuke-down the Towers. Not to say that they did not need to stage a ridiculous, totally unexplainable and utterly suspicious attack on the Pentagon. All they needed is to send two (or even one) ‘hijacked’ plane on autopilot full of corpses (or even live citizens as a variety) into the Twin Towers and to blame it nicely, without any blunder to some trust-worthy ‘hijackers’ from Muslim world. Irrespectively of whether aluminum planes would penetrate thick double-walled perimeters of the Twin Towers or would be simply smashed flat and fall back to the street, the US public would be outraged enough to support any war against Iraq or Afghanistan. More than that, the US Government would claim later that the WTC were structurally damaged and need to be demolished/disassembled, because after planes impacts it is ‘no longer safe’. All the alleged ‘desired goals’ could have been achieved by ‘evil’ Bush administration with the very minimum of efforts, and with no suspicions at all. Just try to use your common sense in this realization. Neither Bush, nor his supposedly ‘evil’ administration DID NOT NEED to actually demolish the Towers, not to say that they did not need to attack the Pentagon. Add here the extremely awkward position the Bush administration found itself immediately after nuking the Towers and shooting down at least 2 passenger planes (flights 93 and 77, at least). And do you believe that they planned to appear in such an awkward situation well in advance? You must be insane to believe so. How about common sense and elementary logic?

Regarding your claim that no original movie is available for the 9/11 affair. I know this is claimed by ‘simonshack’ and his followers. But I don’t care what these lunatics claim. I am certain that only plane impacts were falsified, while the actual Towers collapses were not. Therefore I believe that the most 9/11 movies available today are genuine. I like to use my common sense and so far it had never failed me. But if you sincerely believe that ALL without any exception 9/11 video footages available today were falsified (not only ‘planes crashes’, but ALL the rest – including Towers collapses and news releases), then it is too a serious case for me to treat. Welcome to ‘simonshack’s’ lunatic asylum…