Some more stuff from the rotten libary which supports the theory

 

Some Credible Conspiracies

There are a number of stories in circulation about specific warnings prior to 9/11, as well as numerous questions about how and why things blew up or fell down the way they did. Some have been covered in the mainstream press, others are perennial e-mail forwards. The most credible claims include:

 

Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator hired after 9/11, was appalled to discover that a giant stack of documents the FBI possessed prior to September 11 indicated very clearly that a major attack was coming, and that it involved airplanes. Edmonds was subsequently told to work slower -- because she was making her colleagues in the department look bad. She was then fired for reporting a security breach by one of her colleagues. Sadly, this story is completely true and was confirmed by the Justice Department, which then retroactively classified its confirmations so that Edmonds couldn't use them in a civil suit over her termination.

 

In July 2001, a moderate Taliban minister warned the U.S. that al Qaeda was planning a "massive attack." Shortly thereafter, Egyptian intelligence warned the CIA that al Qaeda had recently sent 20 operatives to the United States, and that some of them had trained as pilots.

 

San Francisco Mayor Wille Brown received a call from someone identified only as his "airport security" on September 10, 2001, warning him in a nonspecific manner about air travel, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. Some follow-up articles, reported by random non-journalists on the Internet, claim that the call came from Condoleezza Rice, but those reports are apparently based on nothing. (Editor's Note: Please don't e-mail us to tell us what those reports are based on. Really.)

 

Many people have questioned the collapse of WTC7, an adjacent building in the World Trade Center complex that housed a CIA station, among other things. Most of these theories are accompanied by the usual kinds of specious analysis that the building "couldn't possibly" have collapsed due to the apparently insignificant stresses caused by the total collapse of the world's two tallest buildings just a few hundred yards away. Some have proposed that the building was bombed, others cite police transmissions that seem to indicate the building was demolished by emergency crews. These unresolved questions are more credible than the Pentagon missile theory, but no solid evidence has yet emerged to prove foul play.

 

The official lore of September 11 has it that United Flight 93 crashed after the passengers stormed the cockpit in an effort to retake control of the plane from its hijackers. (Whether they made it into the cockpit is not clear.) But there have been persistent and credible suggestions that the flight may have been shot down by the U.S. military. In the confusion of 9/11, there were several points at which internal government communications indicated there may have been a shootdown, and Flight 93 was apparently headed for the White House. Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the military to shoot down any hijacked planes approaching the White House, and in a conversation with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a few minutes later, official transcripts quote Cheney as saying, "It's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out." Rumsfeld responded that he could not confirm that statement. The official story is "there was no shootdown," but a reasonable person can wonder.

 

28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job

Highlights missing Pentagon trillions as potential motive

 

Paul Joseph Watson | September 7 2006

 

A 28-year CIA career man and a former skeptic of alternative 9/11 explanations has gone further than ever before in voicing his convictions that the attacks bore the hallmarks of an inside job and the three buildings in the WTC complex were brought down by controlled demolition.

 

Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. Since then he has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies.

 

In Christison's recent article, Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11, he afforded credibility to the notion that "significant parts" of the official 9/11 story were false and after careful research he concluded that the twin towers and building 7, "were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings."

 

Christison went further in a radio interview, agreeing that the attacks being an inside job was the "most likely possibility."

 

"David Griffin believes this all was totally an inside job - I've got to say I think that it was too," said Christison.

 

Christison initially approached the subject unwilling to even consider that elements of the government could be engaged in such heights of criminality but his research quickly began to change his mind.

 

"Just about half a year ago it dawned on me that not only was I trying to avoid an issue that might be extraordinarily important - more important than any other issue," said Christison.

 

"I have since decided that....at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen."

 

 

Christison (pictured) stated that the suspicious collapse of the three buildings, including building 7 which wasn't hit by a plane, were likely the result of controlled demolitions.

 

"The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes."

 

"All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions."

 

Referencing the 2.3 trillion dollars that was discovered to be missing from the Pentagon's coffers, Christison emphasized the fact that with an unlimited budget, the scope of operations that could be undertaken by the military-industrial complex are almost without recourse.

 

"There is so much money now sloshing around throughout not only the CIA but the intelligence components of the Defense Department - which are actually bigger than the CIA - that these guys can do almost anything they want these days."

 

Christison said that one of the subsidiary motives behind 9/11 was to take attention away from an impending exposure of the missing trillions and criminal proceedings against high officials - just as LBJ had Kennedy assassinated partly to delay imminent corruption probes that would have sent him to prison.

 

Christison is just the latest in a deluge of former government and intelligence agency insiders to boldly go public with their doubts about the official story behind 9/11 and he has an urgent message for future whistleblowers who might be considering the same course of action.

 

"We have got to be willing to be discredited, we have got to stick our necks out - this is just plain too important."

He retired in 1979 - hes been out for over 20 years and "I have since decided that....at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen." is a pretty vague answer.

 

Bin Laden Tape Betrays 'Phony Hijacker' Contradiction

Target is "U.S. home audience," as with fake Al-Zarqawi propaganda campaign, to reinforce 9/11 myth as 5th anniversary nears

 

Paul Joseph Watson | September 8 2006

 

A new tape showing Osama Bin Laden meeting with September 11 hijackers days before the attack has served to boost the Bush administration's war on terror agenda as the fifth anniversary of 9/11 nears, yet one of the hijackers who appears in the tape is reported elsewhere as still alive and completely unconnected to the terror plot.

 

The tape purports to show Bin Laden meeting with alleged 9/11 hijackers Wail Alshehri and Hamza Alghamdi days before the attack in Afghanistan.

 

After reports emerged that some of the named hijackers were still alive the FBI quickly changed its story to claim that some of the hijackers had stolen the identities of other individuals. Innocent people who saw their photograph amongst the 19 terrorists complained to their embassies yet the same mug shots are still used to this day and the FBI has made no effort to revise the list.

 

Telling therefore it is that Wail Alshehri was one of the accused hijackers reported by the L.A. Times to still be alive and protesting his innocence in Saudi Arabia after 9/11.

 

So how can Alshehri appear in a tape meeting with Bin Laden when he had no involvement with the plot whatsoever and is presumably still alive today? Does the Alshehri in the videotape look similar to the innocent Alshehri who was framed for the attacks? Why does the mainstream media refuse to even ask these questions, instead just blithely relaying the propaganda?

 

Furthermore, the other alleged hijacker in the tape, Hamza Alghamdi's original mug shot as it appeared on the splash of 19 hijackers bore, "no resemblance" to the real Hamza Alghamdi - according to his own father after being informed of his son's involvement in the attack. The Hamza Alghamdi in the new video does appear to be the same individual in the FBI's mug shot parade. As with at least seven of the hijackers, it seems that there are two of each one, and the ones that appear in the tapes are patsies or dupes.

 

This is by no means a stretch when we recall that many of the hijackers were trained at secure U.S. government air bases and that the FBI had its own informants living with them. (MSNBC & Newsweek)

 

The credibility of the tape is not helped by the fact that a companion tape allegedly showing Abu Hamza al-Muhajir - who is being sold as the new Al-Qaeda frontman in Iraq - urging Iraqis to join with insurgents - contradicts reports that were picked up by Al-Jazeera itself, that al-Muhajir has been incarcerated in an Egyptian jail cell for the past seven years.

 

 

As was the case with Musab Al-Zarqawi - the patsies and the fall guys are interchangeable and they can be killed, captured and recycled numerous times over without stirring the attention of a sleeping public, nearly half of which still believes Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11.

 

Recall that the Pentagon's stated intention to artificially magnify Musab Al-Zarqawi's role in Iraq was followed by the release of a video tape of Al-Zarqawi threatening the infidels.

 

The target of this leaked propaganda campaign to boost Al-Qaeda's profile was said to be the "U.S. home audience," and included planting fake stories in newspapers - one of which was later splashed on the front page of the New York Times.

 

The formula is simple. The U.S. government needs to dangle the boogeyman in front of the public at regular intervals to prop up its flailing agenda. A course of propaganda is agreed upon, the target is identified as the "U.S. home audience," and Al-Jazeera releases a new tape.

 

 

The hijackers were patsies, Osama bin Laden was a patsy - it doesn't really matter if they met or not. The other patsy in the video, Hamza Alghamdi, was trained at the behest of the U.S. government at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. But the video - as with most war propaganda - is aimed at the lowest common denominator and for most Joe Six Pack and Sally Soccer Moms it's enough to reinforce the official version of 9/11 and the legitimacy of the war on terror.

 

The target is again the "U.S. home audience," and allied with the White House's recent announcement that it would target conspiracy theorists as terrorist recruiters, this is another lurid effort to beat back the rampaging wildfire of enlightenment created by the burgeoning 9/11 truth movement.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z3SzXjL7XQ

9/11 Truth: Mohammad Atta & The Patsies

 

Bin Laden's on screen appearances routinely intersect with politically opportune moments for the Bush administration. September 11 and its fifth anniversary is still the broken record of justification for everything the Neo-Fascists are getting away with - it's the only remaining PR ploy that Americans in large enough numbers are willing to swallow. The fact that confidence in the government version of 9/11 is hanging by a thread has provoked an unprecedented backlash from the establishment and this re-hashed tape is part of that riposte.

 

Regular readers won't need to be reminded of the 2001 'Osama confession tape' - rated R for ridiculous, a fat bin Laden conveniently owns up to 9/11, completely contradicting his earlier statements, on a video tape magically 'discovered' during a random house search in Jalalabad.

 

The April 2006 Al-Zarqawi tape followed hot on the heels of a previous Bin Laden tape that again astoundingly gave the pretext for the Bush administration to pursue its goals in Sudan, Iraq and Iran with increased worldwide support at a time when Bush's poll numbers sank to a record low of 32 per cent.

 

Osama just seems to employ perfect timing on every occasion to pop up right when it is most rewarding for the Neo-Cons. The October surprise in 2004, a Bush bashing Bin Laden bonanza tape, enabled George W. to secure the extra couple of points he needed to ensure re-election. Even role-playing Skull and Bones puppet John Kerry went off-script and blamed the Bin Laden video for his defeat. Veteran newsman Walter Cronkite told Larry King that the whole thing was a Karl Rove orchestrated set-up.

 

Expect more coincidental image boosts - gracefully supplied by Al-Qaeda - over the next few days as Karl Rove and the architects of apocalypse milk the teat of 9/11 until the cows come home.

I still love how you dismiss mainstream media as being under government control when it debunks your theories yet when it supports your views you right proudly claim it be fact. MMm

 

Still unlike other people in other threads, (i'm giving you credit here Gareth) youve given me a cause to do some research! and this latest piece in particler will need some answers!

 

There was an article about this in todays Metro - have you read it? I only saw the pictures and the headlines looking over someones shoulder and when i asked if i could read it they told me to fook off.

Well, the the fact is - that these articles go unheard of and are not noticed by anyone because they are normally a small snippet in the backs of newspapers....

 

Of course there are good reporters working in news who try and uncover the truth but there's far more news articles and reports that cover it up.

 

IF there were no mainstream news articles like this AT ALL then I think that there would be far more questions raised by people and the reporters who would be complaining about their reports being blocked from getting pressed or put on air.

 

It's like if all the people talking about government involvement in terror or their suspect polices and lying were taken off air and the freedom was lost to do so then it really would harm the government as they would be seen as having taken away outlets that could expose what they are doing....you know, they need to allow the impression of a free press.

 

More often it's just decent reporters/presenters who break the stories....but there isn't many of those left in the mainstream, that's for sure.

 

And the fact that nothing is done about it dispite these reports in the alternative AND the mainstream press shows how a lot people are willing to ignore what's really happening.

 

And no, I havent read the Metro today....I'm sure my housemate will bring it back with him later and I can have a look......or I can just check their website.

It's like if all the people talking about government involvement in terror or their suspect polices and lying were taken off air and the freedom was lost to do so then it really would harm the government as they would be seen as having taken away outlets that could expose what they are doing....you know, they need to allow the impression of a free press.

 

 

But surely if the government is capable of doing 9/11 then surely it could arrange for someone to have an accident with Mr Jones for example. ( I may not like him but i dont want anything bad to happen to him)Or fit him up on some bogus charges??

Thats gotta be way easier then plotting to kill your citizens on mass.

^ hey, that's not far from the truth.....he's had attempts at that.

He's also been beaten up in a carpark before actually. And he's always saying that he's probably going to get killed in something that's made out to be a car-jacking or similar.

And death threats are pretty common to him.

But if he was killed now I guess it would make him a martyr. If he ever dipped out of the 9/11 truth spotlight for a while then I guess he would be killed for sure.

Well thousands of people everyday get beat up- odds are that you or someone you know has been beaten up for no reason-its a sign of the times :-(

 

"And he's always saying that he's probably going to get killed in something that's made out to be a car-jacking or similar."

 

Mmm so any accidents that do happen are of you know whos doing.

Have you ever worked in the corporate world? Theres so much red tape - It takes half a dozen people to change a light bulb.

 

 

hahaha very true.

 

In the way our goverment works something this big you cannot hide from people in office or power or working for them or people working for NY. too many people would have to know about it for it to actually happen.

Have you ever worked in the corporate world? Theres so much red tape - It takes half a dozen people to change a light bulb.

 

 

I hate all that fucking red tape you have to get though to do anything, the police hate all those forms to fill in, reminds you a bit like futurama where every action requires a form to be filled in.

 

Even changing a light-bulb in the toilets takes weeks of paperwork to hire the people to come in etc, if you try to by-pass the papers and do it yourself you get you and your company into trouble for some stupid health and safety rule.

9/11 and onwards in numbers

 

 

422,000 - New Yorkers had post-traumatic stress disorder

 

 

20 - per cent of Americans knew someone hurt or killed in the attacks 600,000,000 dollars estimated cost of clean-up

 

 

313,577,342,026 - dollars spent by America for the war in iraq

 

 

62,006 - confirmed deaths arising from terror attacks and the war on terror but real toll probably 180,000+

 

 

115 - nations who lost citizens

 

 

22,000 - US bombs fell on Afghanistan in the following 6 months

 

 

2,973 - people killed in 9/11 attacks

 

 

2,974 - US servicemen 'officially' killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, real number almost certainly higher

 

 

274 - FDNY retirements Jan-July 2001

 

 

661 - FDNY retirements Jan-July 2002

 

 

3,051 - children lost a parent

 

 

24 - people listed as still missing

 

 

1,506,124 - tons of debris removed from site

 

 

67 - British victims

 

 

403 - firefighters, paramedics and police killed

 

 

140,000 - jobs lost in New York as a direct result of the attacks

 

 

We must never forget the events of that day

 

Everyone's First Reaction Was "Controlled Demolition"

Before the official mind control script kicked in and remains 5 years to the day

 

Paul Joseph Watson | September 11 2006

 

Rarely highlighted footage of an NBC news anchor commenting that the collapse of the twin towers was by no means accidental and that it was a "planned" event, emphasizes the point that before the official mind control script was introduced and parroted forevermore, everybody's first reaction was "controlled demolition."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhDOq305oh0

 

The NBC anchor featured in this clip is simply reacting to the events he is witnessing with common sense in stating that the collapse of the trade towers was obviously a planned event and by no means an accident or a simple consequence of jets hitting the buildings.

 

"This was clearly -- the way the structure is collapsing -- this was the result of something that was planned."

 

"This is not, it's not accidental that the first tower just happened to collapse and then the second tower just happened to collapse in exactly the same way."

 

"How they accomplished this, we don't know. But clearly this is what happened."

 

 

This is what I wrote in the late afternoon of September 11, 2001.

 

"The collapse of the World Trade Center towers is also perplexing. They clearly imploded as if being demolished by carefully placed bombs within the building. The explanation that the aircraft fuel from the Boeing caused the implosion doesn't tally with the footage of the event. Surely such a method would produce a more inconsistent and graphic explosion? The building collapsed symmetrically."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BcquyD_DcQ

 

CBS News' Dan Rather also commented that the collapse of building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, resembled a deliberate attempt to demolish the structure using incendiary devices.

 

"For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRHluIkUycA

 

NBC's Pat Dawson reported the working hypothesis of the FDNY in the immediate aftermath of the towers' collapse.

 

"The chief of safety of the Fire Department of New York City told me he received word of a possibility of a secondary device -- that is another bomb going off. He tries to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqdrUMfax8I

 

MSNBC news anchor Rick Sanchez reported that police had found suspicious devices in and around the WTC area and that the secondary explosions, which were reported by numerous survivors, were thought by police to be bombs.

 

"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion."

 

"I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center aside the ones caused by the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it."

 

During an exchange between ABC's Peter Jennings and reporter Don Dahler following the collapse of the north tower, the first assumption is again that controlled demolition must have been used to take down the building.

 

"Yes Peter its Don Dahler down here. I'm four blocks north of the World Trade Center. The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed."

 

"The entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off....when you see the old demolition of these old buildings. It just folded in on itself and it is not there anymore."

 

Peter Jennings: "If you wish to bring, if anyone has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows, that you're going to do this you have to get at the, at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down."

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5061514770009171572

 

Police chiefs, fire department heads, veteran news anchors, eyewitnesses on the ground - everyone's first reaction was "controlled demolition" because the events suggested nothing else. In the first few hours of 9/11 - bombs in the buildings was almost as equally understood and accepted as the fact that planes had hit the towers.

 

Just as with the Oklahoma City Bombing - reports of multiple explosions and bombs were commonplace - but the scriptwriters had to concoct a fable that matched the explanation of Timothy McVeigh and a single fertilizer truck bomb. Similarly, anything that contradicted the already decided upon explanation of 9/11, no matter that almost every eyewitness interviewed as the attack unfolded reported bombs, was cut from the final edit of the propaganda.

 

History is written by the winners - if the government had announced that gargoyles from the planet Jupiter had destroyed the towers with mind rays - the mainstream media would have lined up, saluted, licked boots, and supported that explanation.

 

The sheer magnitude of trying to overturn such a gargantuan lie as the official story of 9/11 rested on demolishing the power of the initial mind control - the first explanation of what happened is always provided by the government and it always remains as the seal of authenticity, no matter how preposterous. Not enough people dared question the official version of 9/11 in the hours and days after the attack and that's why it stuck.

 

If the 9/11 truth movement has achieved anything it is the diluting of the influence and credibility the government has in brainwashing the public with its "official version" in the immediate aftermath of major events. Which thankfully makes the much vaunted "next 9/11" less likely in the short-term to happen.

With respect to the post above:

 

Even in all my years in practice as an attorney, where we play with statements constantly, I am always amazed how a person's words can be twisted to support a contrary conclusion.

Well said!

Really don't think there's much twisting of words going on....

 

It's making the point that the initial instinct was that something else happened to bring down the towers. Watch the videos.

 

The very fact that at first sight, the thought of controlled demoliton came into the minds of alot of people actually holds quite strong standing. Something very wrong (apart from fire) obviously happened to bring them down.

 

Then, in time, people have been fed the other story through the joke that is 'the media'.

WTC 7 - maybe

 

But the twin towers - you really think so?

 

How could they plan it? What if the Jets hit the wrong spot? would the charges have withstood the impact and not been damaged/displaced? No way. Too easy to go wrong.

The airliners were obviously perfectly guided on 9/11 to hit at the perfect level. GPS is to within feet.

Look.....at the very basic level just watch the twin towers fall. Watch video's of them crumble and just simply notice exactly how they fall. Even if I leave all of the important science out of this - gravity was supposed to be the force which pulled them down but you can see objects flying up into the air for hundreds and hundreds of feet.....it's all just obvious.

 

Just watching them fall and observing what you see you can make sense of it quite easily. A lot of the time talking about all the scientific evaluations (however well they are done) hides the fact anybody can see it by simply watching the towers demolish. There's many, many angles of it and you can see that something else is going on there. Every inch of concrete explodes to dust and the buildings go down at just about freefall speed without no resistance at all.........anyone can see it.

 

And this is something anyone can see and take note of.....just forget it's 9/11 for a second and imagine that you are witnessing something new, without seeing any news about it or hearing ANYTHING about it.

 

It is abosolutely compelling at this basic level.

VIDEO: Professor Steven Jones On Thermite

 

You Tube | September 11 2006

 

Professor Steven Jones - a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Currently, Jones is investigating the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by pre-positioned cutter charges.

 

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj6_VrXcrvY

 

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds29Nzm4xbM

 

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tlMDan5Tro

 

Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwcwz9uz9lw

 

Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR2reena2WQ

Edited...I posted the above twice, by mistake.

wow, making an already controversial thing even more controversial. i never thought that would be possible. have you guys heard of the documentary "the falling man". i saw it on CNN i think. it's crazy. i don't know if it's a plotted thing or not. nor do i wanna think about it. it's all just really sad.

New 9/11 Home Footage from New York

 

This video was released yesterday on the fifth anniversary of the attacks. Not much information is known about it at present but it obviously documents the World Trade Center attack from a nearby building. The second plane hitting the tower and the first collapse is edited out but the north tower collapse is included. Rescue efforts, including footage of a rescue helicopter is also shown.

 

The shocked onlookers remark their surprise that fighter jets are not in the air defending the area.

 

The second plane is described as a "military plane" - something the CGI theorists will enjoy haha - but my first reaction upon seeing the second plane video on 9/11 was also that it was a military plane - because the sight of a commercial airliner crashing into a building was unprecedented and the first presumption was that the plane was in the sky to observe the fire in the north tower and/or conduct escue efforts.

 

 

Holy Moly, this must have been scary for them and you can hear them get really freaked out...they live pretty close to it. When she opens the window it's just sounds mad. Some bits which I wanted to see where cut.....annoying.

The editing on that is incredibly annoying, I have to admit... :\ The second plane hitting the tower is important footage, albeit horrifying..... They show the explosion, but not the plane hitting it, which is strange.

 

Thank you for that. I must admit, I'm having a hard time keeping my emotions in check regarding that day recently... I don't know the truth, but no amount of truth will change my horror and the fact that my entire life changed. I remember sitting at the kitchen table, my parents made me do my homework and face away from the television. But the one time I turned around, the image of a man in a business suit jumping out of a window and tumbling to the ground, to his death.... I watched it. That image will NEVER leave my mind.

 

The scenario of the day may change, but the human toll and pain it put this nation through never will. If only, it just gets worse.

 

 

 

We canNOT forget.

Absolutely.

 

I remember watching the news almost 24/7 for the week after the event, with very little sleep...and I thought it was bad. Imagine having an apartment that overlooks the whole WTC area....

 

Anyway..back to that video...

 

That part a wanted to see were the minutes & seconds before the collapse of each building....even on the second on they cut it strangely. Because there is another film (9/11 Eyewitness) which show blasts at the bases of the towers - however this video is shot from the pier, across the water. This new home video is alot closer and would show them alot clearer.....but they cut them out everytime..

 

That's why it annoys me...