NPR started a Disqus discussion.
Señor El Once : Stacked Deck
2011-08-26
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
The deck was stack from the get-go given the interviewee list: one 9/11 Truther against two 9/11 coincidence theorists, one biased moderator, and a heavily biased producer/editor who gave the final spin on the interview with regards to the minutes broadcast from each side (and how many minutes from each landed on the cutting room floor).
Señor El Once : Newtonian physics taught in high school
2011-08-26
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
On the surface of it, Ms. Dibble, you don't understand the Newtonian physics taught in high school to be able to talk knowledgeably about 9/11.
The acceleration of the towers demolition (near free-fall), the pulverization of content, and the ejection of mass laterally at great speeds are energy sinks that cannot be accounted for by a Newtonian gravitational collapse, as the govt misleads us into thinking. In fact, as soon as you have destruction of content or ejection of content (let alone both), then energy has been consumed that can no longer be used to keep the upper mass accelerating at near free-fall to the ground.
According to NIST's own Shyan Sunder, free-fall means that no structural resistance is present below a falling mass to slow a mass from gravitational acceleration, 9 m/(s^2). This is precisely what WTC-7 blatantly exhibits over 100 feet. The acceleration of towers' collapse through the path of greatest resistance to the ground was measured in times pretty damn close to free-fall.
So how did these three structures collapse at near free-fall through their paths of greatest resistance while also pulverizing content and ejecting content (in the case of the towers)?
The answer is easy. Energy was added to the demolition so that gravity didn't have to account for it all.
Energy added means 19 hijackers in planes (whose whereabouts prior to 9/11 was known and didn't include extensive stays in NYC in order to configure demolition) didn't do it. They had help. INSIDER HELP, not just to the secure buildings but also to appropriate mechanisms of destruction.
This is the can of worms 9/11 opens, and that everyone from govt officials through complicit corporate media (and even this NPR report) are trying desperately these last 10 years to distract us from. Some were involved; most became involved in the cover-up after the fact, because they know that public revelation to these facts could, would, and should radically overthrow the status quo on so many levels -- certainly a purging of govt and its agencies, if not a re-drawing of region/nation lines within the USA.
Of course, a "radical overthrow of the status quo" doesn't have to mean violent. It could be very peaceful: "Hey, federal govt! You are no longer representing us and doing things for us in manners we find acceptable. You are no longer needed. Our region has its own laws. Federal govt get out, and expect no more money from us to fight your wars or pay the central bank."
Señor El Once : Agenda and Talking Points
2011-08-26
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Sure, I'll help you out. You don't know what you're talking about, but you have an agenda and talking points. How much are they paying you to post?
Every instance of upper floors (or mass) hitting lower flowers resulted in resistance from the lower floors. True, the energy of the falling mass might have been greater than the inherent resistance of a lower floor N, but N's resistance still translates into a slowing of the falling mass from gravitational acceleration. This we did not observe. Moreover, ejection of materials slows the falling mass further as well as reduces the falling mass, both operations that take away energy from the collapse acceleration.
Pulverization is a massive energy sink. It is one thing to push structure out of the way so you can later fall through its space. It is quite another to instantly "grind" that structure into fine particles. Pulverization was observed and has no explanation.
Let's say the demolition initiation was at floor N where the planes supposedly hit, with M floors above. (N+M=110). For simplicity we can say that the top M floors were composed of the same material and strength as each of the lower N floors. (Reality is that an individual floor X is stronger than any floor above X, or X>X+1, by design.) With this simplification, if the top M floors were to pulverize themselves into the the lower N floors, their destruction should be halted at N-M (give or take a floor). This we did not observe.
Señor El Once : Energy is required to change that "bit"
2011-08-26
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Ms. Dibble, you wrote:
"Every bit that was falling had been, the instant before, a bit that was resisting."
Energy is required to change that "bit" from a static state of no movement into suddenly a state of movement. You imply that the static (resistive) bit was hit by a bit from above which put it into motion. The issue is that the resistive bit exhibits its resistance by slowing the bit from above from its previous acceleration.
You wrote:
"So there are multiple things going on besides falling. There is deterioration and interactions and so on."
Each of those "deteriorations and interactions" consume energy from the falling bit, slowing the bit from free-fall acceleration. Yet this did not happen.
You wrote:
"stuff happening where you could anticipate that the structure at some
level was losing its structural integrity, and that is not the same as
falling."
Yeah, stuff was happening, but no physics wise person "could have anticipated" the loss of structural integrity to the degree it happened: SUDDENLY. INSTANTLY. COMPLETELY. AS IF IT WERE SUDDENLY REMOVED AND WERE NEVER THERE. Gradual or partial loss of structural integrity, sure. But instant and complete?
Grow up, Ms. Dibble, and pay attention.
Very little is under my sink (or your sink) that could add energy and cause explosions. But even if I error on this, the resulting fireballs and scorched fragments will attest both to the explosive accelerant and that my house was decimated into, say, fist-size particles, not nanometer sized powder.
Pulverization of the towers happened FROM THE EARLIEST PHASES of demolition when INSUFFICIENT kinetic energy from falling mass was present that could be turned into such pulverizing force.
Señor El Once : Validate/Invalidate it upon its own Merits
2011-08-27
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Dear Mr. Zeno, you write:
"Wow! Death rays from above! Really?"
Objectively pursue this and validate/invalidate it upon its own merits for 9/11. The study into DEW will be enlightening and will open doors of understanding with regards to true areas & events of applicability, in the past, present, and future.
Whether or not spaced-based DEW was used on 9/11, your joking dismissal of it is in direct conflict with yet another PNAC agenda item enacted by the Bush Administration, namely dominance in space (e.g., weapons in space), along with a permanent military presence in the Middle East, changes into the military operates (e.g., contractors), changes to the reasoning and rationale for going to war (e.g., pre-emptive), and control of cyber-space (e.g., the internet).
Señor El Once : merely innocently speculating
2011-08-27
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Dear Mr. LaLiberte,
I agree that the official story is full of lies. I also agree that, as a duped useful idiot, I am merely innocently speculating, albeit after an objective evaluation that I encourage for all honest seekers for truth.
Thus, I disagree that "spaced-based DEW is crap." You haven't made your case, except with the strawman "IT DAMAGES CREDIBILITY." It is within the realm of credibility. The exercise of considering DEW in all of its forms and objectively ruling it in or out for each particular destruction feature brings great understanding into 9/11.
Remember, I said it was "spire-based DEW" for the towers, and that we shouldn't rule out "spaced-based DEW" as a contributor for one or more of the large crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of WTC-4 main edifice at a clean line from its North Wing.
Thus, your remarks "WE DON'T NEED IT" couldn't be further from the truth. For most of the first decade, I was fine with such a half-way and halting position into representing 9/11 as an inside job to the uninitiated using only the most solid evidence, like "NIST documents that stage 2 of WTC-7's collapse free-fell 100 ft in 2.25 seconds." But when significant chunks of the "mainstream 9/11 Truth theories" (e.g., super-dooper nano-thermite) don't address all of the evidence (e.g., vehicle damage, pulverization, radiation measurements) and are scientifically mis-applied in attributing to anomalous features in the destruction (e.g., duration of under rubble fires), they act like a governor to the 9/11 truth movement, slowing it down from effectively answering the energy questions and explaining many pieces of evidence and anomalous features in the destruction.
You write:
"I would ask him to please stop."
The way to get me to stop is very simple: prove me wrong. As a duped useful idiot, I can easily be swayed by convincing arguments and evidence. But the funny thing is, after Dr. Judy Wood's excellent textbook and "September Clues" convinced this duped useful idiot on the very real possibilities of DEW and video fakery, respectively, as well as the depths of corporate media's complicity on 9/11, I haven't seem them effectively debunked to convince me otherwise. It has been mostly ridicule and dismissal, as you attempt, but no real meat or substance to back it up. A disclaimer here is that I have been around the 9/11 block championing these two "bat-shit crazy conspiracy theories."
Because the 9/11 game changes in the next decade, I feel it important for the sheople to be aware of how deep the PSYOPS went, else we'll be incapable of knowing how much we need to change/oust in our government and various institutions.
Señor El Once : Death rays from above!
2011-08-27
Dear Mr. Zeno, you write:
"Wow! Death rays from above! Really?"
Objectively pursue this and validate/invalidate it upon its own merits for 9/11. The study into DEW will be enlightening and will open doors of understanding with regards to true areas & events of applicability, in the past, present, and future.
Whether or not spaced-based DEW was used on 9/11, your joking dismissal of it is in direct conflict with yet another PNAC agenda item enacted by the Bush Administration, namely dominance in space (e.g., weapons in space), along with a permanent military presence in the Middle East, changes into the military operates (e.g., contractors), changes to the reasoning and rationale for going to war (e.g., pre-emptive), and control of cyber-space (e.g., the internet).
Señor El Once : More Influential
2011-08-29
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Mr. LaLiberte wrote:
"More influential? I hope 911blogger.com
is more influential to the public. Internally, there is more agreement
about the issues. Controversies don't go so well there."
There is more agreement on the issues because they ban (or don't even allow) participants who voice controversial things.
My 9/11 trick ponies have become "September Clues" and DEW (ala Dr. Judy Wood). Not that elements of these aren't disinformation, but they have sufficient evidence & truth buried within that deserve more serious consideration.
I have to admit that these trick pony topics are on the fringes. Moreover, in my trips around the 9/11 block, I have experienced the run-arounds of the disinformation warriors. I can almost understand the pre-emptive treatment. The issue is that they never go back and re-evaluate when new evidence is presented or shown in a different light.
I'm a rational person, albeit maybe duped. I could be convinced of something else, but the reality is that my trick ponies haven't been proven lame or in need of being put-down midstream. Ridicule doesn't cut it.
Moreover, super-dooper nano-thermite is example of how 911blogger is being duped. It doesn't address all of the evidence, and Dr. Jones allows the science-challenged minions of 9/11 to extrapolate erroneously its features into explaining things that it can't: namely, content pulverization, duration of under-rubble fires, radiation signatures, anomalous vehicle damage. Were Dr. Jones to publish the math, unrealistic massive quantities of thermite would be required for the first two alone.
"But hey! We found traces of thermite in the dust." Yep, and to stop there given its weaknesses in explaining all of the evidence does us a disservice.
Converted 2006 : sleezebag Miggs from Popular Mechanic
2011-08-29
a comment by Converted 2006 on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
These guys are coached and well prepared buyt terrible liars and they are perhaps handsomly paid for diverting the issues from Principles of Physics to Psychology and how we feel about events and our mood.
What a Piece of Crap WBUR has created to ruin there crudentials and reputation, if there were any left.”
Señor El Once : spam or unimportant
2011-08-30
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Questionman overstates his case when he says:
"Patrick, clearly Bluebonnet's purpose here is to spam away the substantive discussion."
Berthe asks: "Questionman, So who do you think is reading this board?"
Without the help of gmail, this discussion became after 100+ postings next to impossible to follow and participate real-time within the NPR article's discussion section. In a real-time sense, maybe the 2000+ postings seems like spam.
But that doesn't make it spam or unimportant.
The true audience for this is not exclusively real-time. They are the latter-day lurkers who stumble across this NPR article. They are the database archeologists of the future taking a pulse of history and seeing what this generation thought and how they were played.
Today, the 2000+ postings seem overkill; today, Bluebonnet's may seem to spam away substantive discussion with his postings about those prominent people who questioned 9/11.
Long-term, what appears in this NPR discussion is exactly what needs to be here: that Israel is suspected of being heavily involved as the right out-sourced agents and an agenda they and the neo-cons wanted to realize on a global scale; that DEW must be considered, because pulverization and its energy requirements aren't easily answered even by thermite; that complicit corporate media played an active role in spreading the propaganda of who did it and in defining this made-for-telly event; and that even NPR could be tasked with propagating PSYOPS on the eve of the 10th anniversary to label and discredit seeking answers and truth to 9/11 as being crazy, kooky, and loony.
Even the disinformation and the disruptive agents play their requisite roles. Rest assured, future readers will have a better grasp on the lies of today than we do. Their assessment of those (erroneously) arguing "nothing to see here with these bat-shit crazy troofers, move along now" will not be pretty.
This discussion, if its database survives the test of time, is important. Whereas it might not lead us into the desired independent investigation into 9/11, it might very well serve as a warning needing to be heeded by future generations being conned by repeats of the same. Maybe they will have know enough to make different decisions than us, in overcoming telly-couch-potato-ism, in seeking the truth of events, in not being satisfied with clearly woefully inadequate govt "explanations", and in exposing deceit that leads to wars and its evil offspring.
Keep up the good work.
Señor El Once : Blinders on our Head
2011-08-30
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Turning this around, we see how you've been conditioned to see what you are supposed to see, and nothing outside of the blinders put on your head.
Rory wrote:
"Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time arguing. If you believe that any group was capable of pulling this off with unbelievable secrecy and no leaks than good for you."
You purposely ignore the leaks, the anomalous evidence, and the connecting of dots that have made it into the public domain for consumption, even if through back-channels and as nuggets of truth underlying disinformation campaigns.
More importantly, your statement ignores three facets about the leaks. One, was that any potential leaker is in reality a person like you or me. They may have spouses, children, mortgages, etc. that their gainful employment must provide for. They have something to lose in sticking their necks out to speak up "on principle."
Two, was that Bush made it very clear: "either you are with us or you are against us." The Bush Administration made public examples out of many. Par for the course was losing employment and discredit to their reputation. Ambassador Wilson and the outing of his CIA wife (Valarie Plame) is pretty obvious. Sibel Edmunds, Kevin Ryan, Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood lost employment. Let us not forget the Anthrax attacks and the pressure on Congress and (liberal) media it exerted. The punishment of Wikileaks sends stark messages.
Trends were set to deal with whistleblowers and leakers.
On the other hand, prestige, promotion, and wealth were things bestowed upon those who towed the party line.
Three, was that such iron clad secrecy is easier to achieve through compartmentalization, outsourcing, off-shoring, and offing (e.g., wrapping up the loose ends, killing the patsies, killing those involved.)
Señor El Once : Conspiracy Free Reign
2011-08-30
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks 08/30/11 10:53 AM
Sorry, Jeffe68. They did not "give conspiracy theorist a free rein," and for you to make such a faulty assessment shows how hard you struggle at framing this "appropriately" for the OCT. better luck next time.
You claim that 2 Anti-truthers and a biased moderator (editor & producer) against 1 truther given only 9 minutes of air time is giving 9/11 truth free-rein.
No, free-reign would be 2 (or more) truthers plus an objective moderator (editor & producer) against 1 (or less) anti-truthers for the entire time span of the show. It'd probably also deal with salient facts and evidence regarding anomalous destruction features needing better explanations (or in some case, "any explanation"), as opposed to this hit-piece trying to smear the psychological make-up of a wide swath of the population as being " confused, deluded, or worse" when in reality they are smart, rational, and objective, more so than those gullibly sucking down the OCT hook-line-and-sinker.
From the perspective of the OCT and what the govt needs to do to muzzle and control us sheople, you are absolutely correct: "it was a bad idea doing this show, and the 2000+ comments are pretty
clear example of what can go wrong when you give conspiracy theorist a
free... no, ANY rein."
The volume of the comments shows how out of touch they are, and that they are on the wrong side of both public understanding and belief. Moreover, their efforts were intended as a hit-piece against 9/11 truthers and how crazy we are, yet very little of the comments reflect insane or destructive behavior, except what the Cass Sunstein-esque govt infiltrators bring to the table in their faulty logic and combative internet behavior. And even when I acknowledge how bat-shit crazy my theories must seem (e.g., cold-fusion powered DEW, video fakery), I still come across as more rational and articulate than those mighty defenders of the lame-ass official govt conspiracy theory.
Patrick : recording things for posterity
2011-08-31
a comment by Patrick on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
In the latter half of the 20th century, with the rise of the mass media and its corresponding decline into sensationalism, the American citizen was confronted with episode after episode of his/her government being caught in the act of misrepresenting itself in order to push one of two dueling policy agendas, or dissembling after embarrassing or scandalous activities were brought to light. What was called the "public trust" became more and more tarnished and diminished.
Additionally, the need for all political and commercial messaging to become shorter, louder, and more sensational (in order to compete with entertainment media for the attention of the voting public), resulted in the public discourse devolving into theater, with opposing sides doing everything they could to avoid talking about facts and reality on their merits, and opting instead for heavy reliance on rhetoric and misinformation.
This, combined with the instant availability of unprecedented amounts of information (mostly false and misleading) via the internet, eventually resulted in the rise of cohorts of loud and excitable partisans for every issue imaginable. Each cohort relied solely on a set of facts hand-selected on the basis of agreement with that cohort's position, rather than on the basis of authority, validity, or verifiability.
These forces multiplied each other, until it was possible to have self-sustaining enclaves of extremist thought, motivated by irrational paranoia vis a vis the US government, within which the intellectual currency became the ability to collect enormous volumes of information, including text, images, and video that agreed with the clan's position, via the internet. Again, authority, validity, and verifiability were considered of secondary importance to agreement (which is to say that they were of no importance).
I spent some time among one of these tribes, attempting to engage them in a discussion of their movement's place in the world and what I believed to be some inherent contradictions in their world view. My motivation for this was initially curiosity, followed by disgust, followed by a perverse sort of respect, followed by frustration, followed by disgust, followed by amusement, followed by pity, followed by contempt.
I refer, of course, to the "9-11 Truth" movement. In my final assessment, these individuals were initially people who, like the rest of their countrymen, were traumatized by the attacks of September 11, 2011, on the United States by members of Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. The shock of the events, as all who were present remember, was followed by the cynical manipulation of the American populace by the Bush administration, which eventually led to two disastrous wars, the acceptance of police-state security measures and the eventual decline of the nation itself from its leading position in the world economy.
In the atmosphere of the cultural forces outlined above, this transparent manipulation and the mendacity that it required drove some to an illogical conclusion: that the attacks must have been carried out by government actors in order to create a climate of fear, in which they might enact these policies and carry out these wars, which would otherwise have been resisted by the American people.
People influenced by this idea, unfortunately, could find much to support their suspicions in the dissembling that occurred during the official inquiries into the genesis of the attacks and the collapse of the buildings of the World Trade Center. Meeting like-minded people and discussing their suspicions over the internet, they eventually came to define their goal as discovering the truth of what happened on 9-11.
To a subset of these people, the numerous unexplained or sketchily explained causes of the observable events (which most Americas attributed to a limitation akin to the "fog of war" experienced on a battlefield) was evidence of a conspiracy. And, as the paranoid mindset goes, over time more and more of these inconsistencies were described and seized upon as incontrovertible proof that a sinister and incompletely understood conspiracy had taken place (or was still underway). Typically, there was not wide agreement among the skeptics (now often referred to as "Truthers") as to the specifics of anything, including the inconsistencies themselves, the causes of the inconsistencies, the importance of the inconsistencies, or the identities of the parties responsible. However, it is evident that many of the Truthers seized upon the pieces of information or claims that indicted their villains of choice; typically racial, cultural or political groups with which they had prior dissatisfaction.
Although none of this is particular to conspiracy theorists in general, the remarkable thing about the Truthers was their ability to anoint experts and produce media artifacts, including widely distributed videos. The effect of this steadily growing body of work was to convince susceptible consumers that there was a case to be made, regardless of that case's incoherence and lack of validity.
And so, as of August 2011, nearly 10 years after the attacks, the Truthers continued to exist as a number of isolated and clannish groups, immersed in an echo chamber of facts and accounts produced by Truthers, for Truther consumption.
They were united only in their insistence that acceptance of the historical explanation of events (which they had come to refer to as the "Official Conspiracy Theory" or OCT) was an offence, and that there was no possible perspective that could diminish the importance of their hand produced and selected "facts" which, though typically invalid, unverifiable and irrelevant, were certainly great in number.”
Señor El Once : in agreement there
2011-08-31
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks 08/31/11 09:21 AM
Dear Mr. Patrick,
Bravo! Kudos! You really had me in agreement there, because you were talking about corporate media. That is indeed the way it was from the 60's through the early 80's, when the big three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) dominated our programming.
Alas, then you go off into the weeds to lambast the internet, which brought literate people and interests together... cheaply and over vast distances and time zones and countries. UseNetNews was fabulous!
If interest in [insert here name of: a band, a celebrity, a movie, a genre, a sport, a technology, etc.] was "extremists", it was because few others on the planet knew about it and so many other distractions were pumped into our collective consciousnesses by media to lead the sheople into what we should be liking and thinking.
Then your well-written disinformation comes back onto a dirt road. Such a great and brave sacrifice you made in:
"[spending] some time among one of these tribes [the 9/11 Truth Movement], attempting to engage them in a discussion of their movement's place in the world and..."
Only to go immediately off-road again:
"... what I believed to be some inherent contradictions in their world view."
And here is the crux of the matter. You came to the movement with an axe to grind, because your misguided belief was that 9/11 truth had some inherent contradictions, and you just had to set us straight. What ever happened to open-mindedness and objectivity?
You manage to get back onto a logging road with a valid truth:
"The shock of the events, as all who were present remember, was followed by the cynical manipulation of the American populace by the Bush administration."
You have me going, because you're making an important connection above. Your legs are pumping gaining elevation and distance to your argument.
"In the atmosphere of the cultural forces outlined above, this transparent manipulation and the mendacity that it required drove some to..."
But then you pedal your beach cruiser right off the edge of the cliff.
"...[drove some in the 9/11 Truth Movement to] an illogical conclusion: that the attacks must have been carried out by government actors in order to create a climate of fear, in which they might enact these policies and carry out these wars, which would otherwise have been resisted by the American people."
The highlighted phrase "illogical conclusion" exposes your agenda and shows the precise point your chain came off your big chain ring and disabled your coaster brakes. You admit cynical manipulation by the Bush Administration of the American populace, yet somehow it is illogical to connect the dots with bad actors in government for having caused it.
Clap, clap, clap. Bravo! Brav-oh!
From your opening:
"Well, if we're all just recording things for posterity, then I want to be sure that I get my two cents in..."
I am so glad you did! Now when database archeologists of the future crack this archive open, your postings will represent Cass Sunstein, Philip Zelikow, and the entire NSA Q-Group as a continuing example of how cynical manipulation of the American populace was still in full force at the 10th anniversary! Be proud of your effort!
Señor El Once : super duper nano-thermite has not been investigated
2011-08-31
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Dear Mr. Getty,
You ask if we can think of a reason why super duper nano-thermite has not been investigated by the government to find out which lab made it, when, by/for whom, and how.
I don't have to ask who farted and left skidmarks in their shorts if I know I did it. But sometimes I do anyway to throw the "scent" and suspicion onto someone else... like the dog.
Having done it, the government already knows the information you seek, so they don't have to waste time and money to research it. Instead, they'll spend that money to prevent you from discovering it, and to let out fart-smelling smoke-screens of their own to stoke the fire in manageable directions.
Super duper nano-thermite was involved, but it cannot account for all of the evidence. Too much research (and math/physics) into the matter will reveal that it can't account for the DURATION of under-rubble fires, the massive energy sink exhibited in the pulverization of content, and the anomalous damage to vehicles. Another energy source and destructive mechanism was at play and must be researched.
If the government plays coy about super duper nano-thermite, they seemingly derail the investigation into answering deeper question about energy requirements with circus-side-show distractions "why is our government slow-walking, obstructing, and hiding this nano-thermite information from us?"
Probably the most maligned member of the 9/11 Truth Movement -- mostly by people from within the movement itself -- is Dr. Judy Wood, who simply wants us to open our minds to all of the evidence, to the extent/limits of some evidence, and to mechansims than can more easily Occam Razor answer the energy questions. (Her textbook "Where did the Towers Go?" would be a valued addition to anyone's 9/11 library.) Directed energy weapons (DEW) powered by nuclear reactors or cold-fusion devices (or ?) would be easier to deploy, and would dustify the towers early within the collapse, lest large pieces of building and debris normally associated with controlled demolitions or accidental gravitational collapses fell from great heights with great energy to damage the WTC reverse-bath tub that kept the Hudson out. Pulverization wasn't just an accident exposing an overly efficient to the point of overkill covert operation; pulverization was a demolition goal, because the slightest crack in the bath tub would have flooded the WTC basements and subsequently the subway and the basements of many other buildings, multiplying the destruction level.
Señor El Once : Anthrax eindeutig und klar
2011-08-31
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
The message was "eindeutig und klar" from Anthrax.
"You are either with us, or you are against us."
Go along with our USA PATRIOT Act written and waiting in the wings to exploit this event that we manipulated, and you get a chance to participate and gain prestige, fame, wealth, and more, maybe even as a war profiteer capitalizing on the fear we stoke. War is good for business and the economy. Beat the drums of war. Beat them.
Go against our neo-con agenda, and "Al CIA-duh terrorists" will send you love letters laced with the highest grade Anthrax, will laser your private plane to fall out of the sky, or will suicide you in some benign manner to get you out of the way.
Señor El Once : Tom Daschle and CBS & Dan Rather
2011-08-31
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Dear Mr. McBride,
I thought it was Tom Daschle and CBS & Dan Rather. I don't recall how they targeted Patrick Leahy or if Anthrax was involved.
Señor El Once : If Ron Paul is elected and stays alive
2011-08-31
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Ron Paul had the opening to talk 9/11 truth in 2008, and he immediately back-pedaled.
If Ron Paul is elected and stays alive, he'll have his hands full just fulfilling is promises of auditing/abolishing the FED, getting us out of foreign wars, etc. If he can clean some house in all this, THEN he might venture into 9/11 waters. Thus, yes, such a new 9/11 investigation is doubtful.
[joke]As soon as he takes office, the secret service will show him unreleased footage of the JFK assassination from a different angle that shows the secret service driver making the fatal shot by firing with his left hand over his right shoulder.[/joke]
Señor El Once : total fluff-piece smear-job
2011-08-31
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
I finally listened to the total NPR show. What a total fluff-piece smear-job. Their target wasn't just 9/11 truth, it was the entire internet. They were taking aim at YouTube as well, calling videos "extremely powerful propaganda tools"
He got video's powerful propaganda role right! Case in point are the videos they played over and over of the towers demise. "September Clues" is worth objectively viewing and considering how we were played.
I loved the quote from Mr. Kay, I believe:
"I've never won -- no one has ever won -- an argument with a 9/11 truther."
No duh, Sherlock!
Could it be that the reason articulate and well-prepared (with talking points) Mr. Kay has never won an argument is that the facts and evidence don't stack up on his side? Even their most basic statements about physics don't hold up. Yes, gravity does pull things down, but in the case of the towers, falling at near free-fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance while at the same time pulverizing content into fine powder literally does not add up to Newton until other energy sources are added to the equation.
Señor El Once : opportunity for dishonest people
2011-08-31
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
No, no, no. It is the role of corporate media to "provide an opportunity for dishonest people with an agenda to put out
falsehoods that feed the prejudices of gullible and prejudiced people
and convince them of all kinds of nonsense that isn't true."
Señor El Once : project their presence into all forms of space
2011-08-31
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
The military's objective to project their presence into all forms of space -- above us and cyber -- was plainly documented in the very PNAC documents with the fateful & foreshadowing phrase "New Pearl Harbour." I'll be damned if this last decade didn't help them achieve most of their agenda points.
Something bat-shit crazy on the internet said that the NSA had 1,000+ employee division called the Q-Group with a mandate to tow the "elite" line in cyber-space. This would be in line with Cass Sunstein and Philip Zelikow and the above. With such pollution clearly afloat, no, I do not say that everything on the internet should be trusted.
Our job is to gather plenty and separate the wheat from the chaff, the nuggets of truth from the disinformation, and in doing so chart our own reasoned and speculative framing of the big picture and the depth of the ruse.
Señor El Once : relevant to the discussion
2011-08-31
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
Sorry to horn in on your conversation. To a limited degree, you make a valid point regarding the BlueBonnet re-posts being spam if your objective is a lively debate. They can be rather awkward to read around.
On the other hand, those postings are relevant to the discussion. Moreover, this thread is well past the point where idle curiosity brings real-time new participants.
Thus the point of this discussion becomes posterity, validating for our children and grandchildren who among us was aware, and who seem to be goose-stepping to the tune of govt coins jangling in their pockets... or their heads.
All postings, including and especially yours, Mr. QuestionMan, are welcome. Conflict breeds interest, even if we don't agree.
Señor El Once : Disqus Legacy Comments
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
What you say about comment deletion may be applicable to this WUBR site. Where it might not be true is for those of us using our Disqus accounts to follow this. There, for good or bad, a posting activity record is maintained -- across articles/websites.
... hmm... wait a minute. I stand corrected. Disqus seems to have some willy-nilly nature to it with respect to retention of my legacy comments that might have some component tied to the owning article/website where the Disqus service was embedded. Or maybe the sliding time window into all of my previous comments and "like" flags is limited.
... Yeah, well, I never fully trusted the databases of others to preserve my words anyway.
Señor El Once : A Real Physicist
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
A real physicist can't help you, Ms. Dibble, because you have an agenda and, just like the Downing Street Memos accused the Bush Administration, you are "fixing the intelligence to match the pre-ordained policy."
Of course you "wouldn't ask why", because that exposes how much of our society and its governance needs an overhaul. With regards to "asking how," you aren't listening to the answers. Energy was added, which means a larger conspiracy than the "fixed" 9/11 Commission could ever admit.
Here's my wild-ass speculation that agrees with more evidence than your OCT.
Towers. One or more tiny nuclear reactors (or cold-fusion reactors) powered one or more directed energy devices (DEW). These devices were aimed in a narrow cone up and down. Much like a microwave oven excites water molecules in food, DEW excited water molecules in content. In fact, it turned those water molecules into steam which created enormous pressure on the content in which it was contained (e.g., concrete, drywall, office items, humans, etc.) thereby blowing it apart and "disassociating" it into steam and dust. The aforementioned cone of energy was aimed away from the outer walls, which were probably chucked at their connecting bolts by nano-thermite.
(Nano-thermite by itself comes up short in explaining the totality of the destruction, the pulverization, and the duration of under-rubble fires. Unspent nuclear fragments from the true energy source for DEW comes much closer.)
The rubble pile did have more than one anomalous radiation readings, but because they didn't match the signatures of known nuclear weapons, this has been used as a strawman to knock down any form of nuclear weapon or nuclear generator for a DEW device. Proof of some nukes is in the ailments of first responders matching Hiroshima.
You and others can laugh at "space-based DEW", but kindly explain the crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice at a neat line with its North Wing when insufficient quantities of WTC-1/2 debris is present. I'm still on the fence here, but don't dismiss it. And deriding me or this premise as "crazy, kooky, and looney" doesn't prove it wrong, either.
Is there a big hurricane happening today? Haven't you heard about it on the news?
Then explain Hurricane Erin. When it was at its closest point to NYC on 9/11/2001 and could easily have turned into the coast or traveled up the coast to affect other cities, why was there a sudden news black-out on this storm on 9/11, when its storm surge still was important to monitor, as was its effects on ocean & air travel?
This NPR report is another fine example of how media was complicit and has been complicit in the PSYOPS of 9/11. As are you, Ms. Dibble.
Señor El Once : "Where did the Towers Go?
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Up until I read Dr. Judy Wood's textbook, "Where did the Towers Go?, I was strongly convinced that 9/11 already was a nuclear event: several milli-nukes per tower. How did I come to that view?
The pulverization of content was a massive energy sink that even an overkill & triply redundant conventional controlled demolition (or unconventional one with super-duper nano-thermite) would not achieve without tell-tell decibel audio signatures and other features that are hard to mask. NIST did us the favor of debunking conventional controlled demolition for these very reasons.
The destruction did leave radiation in the debris, which has affected the health of first responders. Of course, two slight-of-hand scientific tricks (by super-duper nano-thermite Dr. Jones) were along the (strawman) lines: (a) the radiation signature didn't match "publicly known" nuclear devices, ergo [wrong] no nuclear weapons were used; and (b) when the definition of "trace levels" is redefined to be > 50 times greater than it was previously [without telling you], they can claim "tritium radiation levels were only slightly above trace levels."
Why did I change from this nuclear trick-pony to DEW, given the above evidence? They would have even more control of the destruction through DEW and by powering it with a nuclear or cold-fusion reaction. It would be hard to limit even a milli-nuclear blast-wave and heat wave. A signature element of the destruction was that paper and other combustibles weren't consumed and were strewn about everywhere. One would think that the heat wave even from a milli-nuke would torch them, AS WOULD SUPER-DUPER NANO-THERMITE and other mechanisms.
As I hinted already, if the energy from a cold-fusion reaction (or even a hurricane off of the coast that the news media went into news-black-out mode before the towers were hit) were transformed for a DEW device to consume and deliver to the target in another form (e.g., microwave energy), they could aim the beam with more precision (e.g., up/down, not at the towers' outer walls).
Side-effects from the energy source probably created massive energy fields, which flipped cars and left anomalous burn patterns on others. The fields affected the metal in cars, where massive Eddy currents were generated that heated the metal and ultimately burned things touching the metal (like paint, gaskets/seals, door handles, gas caps, etc.) Such energy fields had no effect on paper, so metal cars burned while paper didn't.
To your point, Mr. McBride, the next false-flag might be more overt and might not go to as much effort in the propaganda to hide it. Regardless, they'll torch some innocents and blame other innocents to manipulate the population through knee-jerk reactions into surrendering... bit-by-bit, liberty-by-liberty.
Señor El Once : desperately wanted to believe in change
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Berthe wrote:
" If [the false-flag truth of 9/11] was exposed widely and acknowledged widely to have been the work
of non-Muslims and nothing to do with "Jihad!", I don't know that it
would even stop the US from drone bombing wedding parties all over the
Muslim world."
You are probably right. Although I desperately wanted to believe in change as part of the slick Obama package, the reality is that with the same secretary of the treasury and defense (and others) as Bush, nothing he promised to change could be changed. And this will be true for any contestant they put up for the position and ram down our throats.
I disagree, however, with the statement:
"Where the 9/11 story goes from here will not have one iota of impact on the course of my own life."
On the surface and over increments of time that are short -- days, weeks --, this will hold true. The negative long-term effects of the 9/11 story will continue. Hey, they already take ill-health producing images of your naked self at airports, and sometimes feel your junk. They are already aiming at the internet and zapping anonymity. Facebook's intrusion is becoming massive. The wars stemming from 9/11 make us and our economy vulnerable. If it impacts your draft-age kids or grandkids, it'll have more than one iota of impact on the course of your life.
If the 9/11 truth movement had a shock-and-awe moment where the gatekeepers' guards were down and other planet-aligning miracles happened, maybe the depth of the deception could be made plain, and America would have its own restructuring revolution like the Middle East. Then, the impact on the course of your life could change.
Señor El Once : Compose Off-Line
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Good advice.
I've been following it for years. When I get around to it, I eventually re-purpose my words from forums like this for my blog and website.
Thus an additional piece of wisdom is to write (offline) initially with a purpose in mind that the words from a lonely corner of a forum will be re-published, at the very least on your own blog. Keeping this in mind when you write will curb some of our baser instincts to indulge in tit-for-tat unproductive flame wars.
Also, when composing off-line, make sure to store some basic information about the posting, like the URL to where you first published it, the date, the alias used, and accurate quotations of the context (e.g., the words of your discussion partner, date, etc.)
Why?
Because databases controlled by others will go away.
Señor El Once : Posting Advice
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Totally agree. Been my modus operandus since observing the (baser, flame-bait) words of my discussion partners disappear from discussion forums, since observing those databases getting upgraded... *cough* ... without preserving the archives.
I agree with the spirit of #3 to backup, but I question online services. On top of your cellphone bill and per minute & per text charges, your cable bill with pay-per-view charges, your landline with long-distance and internet charges, these online backup services represent yet another straw into your wallet to suck out your cash on a regular basis as well as another drag on both your operating system and internet connection.
With regards to #4, I suppose I agree, although I find it helpful to provide a link to the original posting destination like a blinking neon sign to the entrance of a rabbit hole.
Señor El Once : Meigs and Kay: Semaphores for 9/11 Truth
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Right -- Meigs and Kay made clear right at the head of the show that the subject of Israel was very much on their minds.
Semaphores for 9/11 Truth, they were, waving their flags fervently, "don't land here; move along folks; nothing to see here." Ah, but it isn't their words we need to pay attention to, but the words of those they try to wave you off from.
Señor El Once : divulge country of your citizenship
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks 09/01/11 12:24 PM
Dear Mr. McBride,
Your imagination is weak if you "can't imagine any circumstances in which I wouldn't readily divulge this fact [of the country of your citizenship] without a thought."
I worked very hard at not being the "ugly American" when living and working abroad [which answers your off-topic question.] I did not broadcast my nationality. I did not want to be associated with the usual Americans they came into contact with, which were immature, cocky, and overconfident military personnel or know-it-all, brash, not-at-all-humble business people.
If I were traveling today, I'd be half tempted to put Canadian flags on my gear, so embarrassed am I at what America wrought in the world. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." We can be excused for being fooled by the 9/11 ruse for, say, the first two years. But for the ruse to still be believed and defended by die-hard, flag-wearing, patriotic, America-can-do-no-wrong 9/11 OCT-huggers, it's like we're being fooled again.
Señor El Once : Israeli On-Line Defense Team
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
Does an entire football team get "benched" for the off-field bad conduct of one or two of its players? No.
Implicating the small faction of the govt of America as being complicit in 9/11 does not make our entire nation or the entire govt complicit.
If Cheney and the neo-cons were looking for some "plausible deniability" in the 9/11 events they orchestrated, they would outsource and off-shore things. Use of local talent would be limited to "innocently" getting them out of the way, like with the four (or more) concurrent military exercises in progress at the time of 9/11 and under Cheney's command, like with the changes made to the flight intercept protocols, like by sending interceptor jets out to sea and 1/2 speed, etc.
Who would Cheney turn to? Who has the skills and motivation to assist? A small, isolated faction of Mossad would, and they'd have motivation to help because they wanted America to respond the way they want to respond to their neighbors: pre-emptively brutally.
Enough of your stupid strawman that wants to hammer any mention of Israel's likely involvement in 9/11 as a "bigoted conspiracy theory." Less is more. More is less. The more you bring this up, the more biased you appear making the premise of an Israeli helping hand in 9/11 all the more possible.
Señor El Once : Israelie Television Interview
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Evidence of this claim is an interview they gave on Israeli Television well after the dust in NY had settled. One of the "art students" said they were tasked with filming the towers.
Señor El Once : both foreign and domestic
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
The first key is that the Constitution is worth fighting for. The Constitution is what I love. The second key is that the oath sworn is to defend the Constitution from its enemies, both foreign and domestic.
The number of external threats to our Constitution and country are minimal and exaggerated.
The number of domestic threats are massive and suppressed.
A Constitution worth fighting for, yet we shouldn't be blind to whom is really undermining it. Internal, not external, forces. "They" know and many of us know it. "They" have the advantage of setting the timeline, building the FEMA camps, and steering the hurricanes.
Señor El Once : real-time video feed
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Mr. McBride asked:
"Where are the videos and photos that the Israeli Mossad took of the
destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 while cheering it on?"
Wild-ass speculation: Those videos were the real-time video feed that President Bush twice admitted to viewing before entering the classroom to read "My Pet Goat."
Señor El Once : policies are not America
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
I'll spell it out for you. The American Govt and its policies are not America and the image that Americans have of their country. Guess you can blame that on the propaganda that has been used against us by flag-waving and flag-wearing politicians (and television talking-heads) to get us riled up with patriotism to fight illegal and immoral wars.
America has been undermined from within. I forget the exact dollar figure, but it is in the low, say, hundreds of millions. This is the amount of money that can buy every politician and their votes to put all sorts of stupid laws into place.
Look at how the number of lobbyists outnumbers the number of legislatures by many factors. Look at how policies are foisted on us that most us don't approve of.
Here's a hypothetical I'd like to see happen. Imagine we canceled the department of defense, all branches of the military, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. overnight. That'd be lots of people suddenly out of work. For a tiny fraction of the DoD budget, we could put all of those people on the dole for a year or two until they could be integrated into a "constructive" civilian job. Hell, we could even send them to school for a couple of years. And there would be money left-over to get lots of other people and things out of hock, and America would not be in the financial crisis it is in.
Imagine we canceled the federal reserve. Imagine we sent all federal legislatures home.
States would take up the slack. They'd absorb some of the military and its personal. They'd govern themselves, and form economic alliances with other states. We could start fresh and legislate smart.
I could go on into this hypothetical, but I won't. The point is that "national security" isn't about keeping us safe; it is about job security for the federal government and keeping them employed. And the role of federal government is to act and vote on behalf of the corporations that paid for them.
Señor El Once : Why the "ruse" of flying planes into the WTC?
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Dear Mr. Pete,
Your framing is purposely limited. Expand your scope.
Regarding question #1. Why the "ruse" of flying planes into the WTC? Because they couldn't very well dynamite them without all sorts of uncomfortable questions very similar to the ones the truth movement has been asking, but without airplanes as a distraction which also added the emotional shock-&-awe element "this could have been you on this flight."
What you fail to understand are all of the neat little pieces of financial motivation that tie into the total decimation of the WTC. For example, the towers were white elephants that needed to be removed anyway. Insure them for terrorists attacks, and Silverstein can get $7 billion for his $110 million investment. Make sure the towers are pulverized within their earliest phases, so that no large chunks will fall with sufficient energy to damage the bathtub, because the goal is to build on the site again and to keep the subway rolling.
We don't know how much gold bullion was stored in the vaults under WTC-4, but it was more than reported. And we did recover several hundred million, but they weren't in the vault. They were loaded in a truck in the tunnels under the complex; the drivers had received notification to flee. The main edifice of WTC-4 was leveled at a neat line where its North wing attached.
WTC-7 was probably a glitch that it didn't fall at the same time as WTC-1. It had basement level explosions and fires BEFORE either tower fell. It needed to go, because it housed the SEC who had open investigations & records against many influential Bush financiers. This is how they got paid back; case closed.
The one wing of the Pentagon that was hit was newly renovated with the only returning tenants being the Office of Naval Intelligence, the investigators, and records into the missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon funds.
Thus, we see that the financial motivation just keeps adding up.
Regarding question 2. It is based on the unproven assumption that a real plane actually left DC with people on board. None of the four planes, each with hundreds of thousands uniquely identifiable serial numbered parts, were ever definitively proven to have caused the damage on the basis of such evidence. Operation Norwood for the JFK era presented options for fake planes and faked passengers. When you objectively explore the victims of 9/11, you'll run across a significant number who have all the appearances of being simVictims: made up people with weak legends and poorly photoshopped images. [Go to "September Clues" or "Let's Roll Forums".] When 6 or 7 (I don't recall) of the named hijackers step forward after 9/11 and say "it wasn't me," we naturally assume a simple case of identify theft... Yet the govt has never corrected the record on this. Too risky for the entire house of cards to come tumbling down.
And if the named planes were never proven to have crashed, then any thinking into what happened to those supposedly on board goes beyond speculation. Think about this. None of the planes had working airphones. Cellphones don't work at altitude (unless the plane has equipment to assist.) The KSM case proved that even the call to Ted Olson never connected, and it was soley his wife who planted the theme of boxcutters and had us surrendering nail-clippers at airport security for a decade. If the real passengers never left the airport and if they were detained there, then certain cellphone calls could have happened -- from the ground. They could have been made under diress, or with the aid of voice morphing software. "Hello Mom! It's me, your son, Mark Bingham. ([editor embellishment] You remember. I lived in your house for 18 years...)"
So asking what happened to the people on planes is a distraction and ripe for lots of speculation. Some were fake; some were witness-relocated; and some were probably disposed of permanently.
To your point, flying a missile into the Pentagon isn't within the means or access of most cave-dwelling terrorists, and as such would point the finger at the Pentagon.
Could real planes be hijacked simultaneously? Could they be flown to their destination? Could they be targeted? Would they exhibit enough damage to be plausible for causing the destruction to follow? In reality, the belief that real planes were involved was more important and easier to achieve at significantly lower risk than actually using real planes.
Regarding your question number 3. Anthrax. Need I say more? Okay, look at the scars put on prominent whistleblowers. The clear message was sent: "You are either with us or against us." Being a whistleblower is easier to think about than do when you have a spouse, children, a mortgage, etc. And let's face it, most of those in the military are in the military because they want a war (to prove their courage and patriotism, etc.) Most in govt know how war is good for business. Few are going to rock the boat or derail their gravy train once it was in motion.
Regarding question #4. You have been duped by the ruse of a "liberal media." It has no basis in reality. And it isn't "mainstream media," either. It is a "corporate media," and they were complicit (and still are, as evident by this NPR hit piece) in 9/11. Google "September Clues".
They, too, had their gravy train. Either they gave Bush favorable coverage, or Bush cut off their access to the White House (or wherever.) Can you say, "Anthrax letters to Dan Rather"?
So your question is mis-framed. There was no "large number of mainstream press outlets so eager to bring down the Bush Administration." Gee, before his first term was over, Bush had 47 major scandals that individually could have brought down any other administration. No, they kept piling it on, because each new scandal not only advanced their PNAC agenda in some way but also distracted from the last (series of) scandals. I suppose their philosophy was that the punishment for stealing a piece of candy from a store would be the same if they looted the store and its cash drawer, so they went for broke. They had the advantage of making the laws, picking who would judge on the laws, and influencing what would be said on the telly with a flag patriotically waving in the background and clever logos: "America at War!!!" or "The War on Terror."
Señor El Once : By jove, I think he's got it!!!
2011-09-01
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Pete writes: "So the 9/11 Commission was part of the conspiracy?"
By jove, I think he's got it!!!
Actually, it was Philip Zelikow who was squarely in the conspiracy. Know who Phillip Zelikow is?
While at Harvard he actually wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. As he noted in his own words, "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."
Dr. Phillip Zelikow is the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report and was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.
"Cass Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." "
Señor El Once : aren't conducive to a rational discussion
2011-09-02
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
Dear Mr. McBride,
You had asked what a discussion participant should do when their opponent's words and actions aren't conducive to a rational discussion, when they badger you with nit-picky questions that they don't care the answer about, when they pile research work onto your plate that again they couldn't care less about and are too lazy to do themselves.
You could follow the words of Jesus ("Turn the other cheek") or of the internet ("Don't feed the trolls"), both of which amount to advice given by Mr. LaLiberte, which was "to ignore them."
Yep, ignore them. Post around them. Take the high road. Pick and choose what items, if any, from their posting you want to address. But in general, you let them lather at the mouth and all over their keyboards. Then "body of work" from each of you will vindicate or villify efforts to the future lurkers and database archeologists.
You mentioned earlier the important technique to write (& save) postings off-line and to re-purpose them elsewhere.
Along those same lines, it can be fun to preserve you opponent's words off-line. Then an inspired thought will tell you later what should be done with them. Disqus helps you in this endeavor.
For example, in my travels around the 9/11 block, my worst nemesis used to insult his opponents right from the subject line (not available in Disqus). The body of his text didn't get much better. The inspired thought was to split his posting into two: one with the rational thoughts/questions cleaned up, and one with all of the ad hominem insults compiled together into a bullet list. If I was so inclined, I would respond to a cleaned up rational thought/question (with the caveat that I took the high road in all aspects of my language and posting), because each back and forth instance was another inviting opportunity to hammer home some 9/11 truth. The contrast between a respectful and sincere posting and one that foamed with [fill in blank] at the pixels of each letter secured (later) victory.
Regarding the compiled bullet list of insults, those were saved. When (and if) the list was posted, I added a short editorial to the beginning that said what follows is what my opponent has repeatedly said of me. Let me tell you, even the foulest of language and associations lose their sting and power to hurt when they are listed together, one after the other. They are so over the top, so repetitive, so childish, they discredit the author far more than the intended target.
The key in all of this is to establish as much home court advantage as you can. You don't own this forum; you can expect that your words might one day roll off of the Disqus queue into the ether. What you can control is both language and frequency. You can write respectfully, and you can slow down pace. (Two or more lathering posts from an opponent to one thoughtful, respectful post from you proves the adage, "less is more.")
Señor El Once : caught a fish
2011-09-02
on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist AttacksKudos, Mr. McBride.
Looks like you caught a fish. When an opponent has to lay down two or more responses to one of yours (and limitation in posting length wasn't the issue, when he could edit them into one), well then I guess you can say the hook was set.
The one thing you need to consider with Mr. QuestionMan: Q-Man or Q-bot? You might be arguing with an artificial intelligence with Israel programmed into its algorithm and instructions to repeat "anti-Israel" accusations at ever increasing intervals against certain targets, like you.
The Hollywood distraction and the telly came to America first, which is why we are today a nation (on the average) of grossly overweight and ignorant couch potatoes. Most of us couldn't find Israel on a globe inside of 10 seconds. Most of us don't know what is happening within our own Home Owners Association, let alone the politics of county, state, and federal. Thus, to put any serious thought into any nation outside of "Hoo-ha! USA! USA! #1! Rah, rah, rah" is beyond our mental means, unless... our ancestors or in-laws were foreign, in which case we'd have a soft spot for that particular country.
And through his repetitive harping about Israel in its defense and dubious tactics of labeling others anti-semetic, anti-Jew, anti-Israel, etc., Mr. QuestionMan exposes his love and agenda.
Señor El Once : Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
2011-09-02
Dear Mr. McBride,
[joke] Was it a coincidence that as soon as Mr. QuestionMan was exposed in whole in his own words as being close to a Q-bot for Israel, Disqus goes haywire? [/joke]
It is well for us to review Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist by H. Michael Sweeney.
Mr. QuestionMan inconsistency is most notable. One posting, he is making a rather logical and rational posting about the anomalous features of 9/11, putting him into the 9/11 Truth Camp. The next posting, he frothing at the pixel about someone (e.g., you) being a jew-hater.
I'm sure other disinformation traits can be gleamed from his body of work.
Señor El Once : disintegrate into what's happened here
2011-09-02
Dear Mr. Gente,
Please recognize the difference between being behind it all on 9/11 and having a significant and influential hand in it all. The latter is what I've gleamed regarding the role of factions within Mossad and aligned with the neo-cons in charge of the Bush Administration.
The scope of 9/11 is vast. Few discussion boards cover everything. Everyone, including "duped useful I", gets stuck on some bat-shit crazy analysis of some anomalous 9/11 data point, over which we become religiously fanatical, because, you know, truth is truth, no getting around that and no shame in defending it when we're standing before God on judgment day.
If the discussion board on 9/11 is good, however, it will indeed disintegrate into what's happened here by design rather than accident. Why?
Operation Mockingbird: "was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence domestic and foreign media beginning in the 1950s."
The PNAC manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses": "If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new “global commons.” The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict... "
"The Pentagon’s War on the Internet": "The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet... The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative..."
"The US government has allegedly set up a special security wing (Q Group) with the sole task of distancing Washington from any involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks." According to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen.
Obama confidant's spine-chilling proprosal by Glenn Greenwald: "Cass Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."
In terms of 9/11 message boards, I think "Truth & Shadows" is an interesting place where I'm active.
Señor El Once : gatekeeping efforts that would stop us from looking
2011-09-02
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
So by your reckoning, you are gentleman because you purposely "alienate all... who repeatedly make claims you can't prove, claims that are repugnant to NPR listeners and thus have the effect of making the dicussion repulsive to them."
First of all, claims (e.g., of MOSSAD involvement) can be proven to within the same margin of error as involvement of factions of the US govt, both to a higher degree of precision than the OCT of 19 hijackers doing it.
Secondly, your tactic of "alienating" needs honing. You would have been better off "ignoring," because that doesn't feed.
Thirdly, shock-&-awe, baby! Shock-&-awe. If the truth leads to something "repugnant to NPR listeners", so be it. Illegal wars are repugnant, torture is repugnant, TSA is repugnant, drone bombings are repugnant -- all evil spawns of 9/11 and reflections of its evil origin close to home. Who are you to shelter them and protect them? For the record, your repeated-to-the-point-of-spam "jew-hating" slurs against others makes "the dicussion repulsive to them."
"Legitimate 9/11 truth group?" Don't make me laugh! We have no idea how much we're being led around by our noses.
Is 9/11 Blogger a legitimate 9/11 truth group? Ten minutes, you say? Try zero minutes. They won't even let me in, because they don't want to discuss the energy requirements of pulverization or the deep rabbit hole of media complicity (including video fakery). They don't just promote super-duper nano-thermite endlessly in that forum, its science-challenge yeomen extrapolate it erroneously to destruction features it can't explain: the energy requirements of pulverization and the duration of under-rubble fires. They've never provided the math calculations to estimate the quantities of super-duper nano-thermite necessary to meet these energy requirements, because the resulting numbers suggest massive overkill amounts. Thus, we should be looking for another energy source, another mechanism. Milli-Nukes? DEW? They won't go there.
Is Let's Roll Forums a legitimate 9/11 truth group? The first time I was banned (1 month), the reason given was that I was using the "Mr." honorific to address people in a formal manner. In reality, I was the only person in a thread on Dr. Judy Wood's new textbook who had the courage to purchase it, read it, and knowledgeably comment on it. My opponents? They gave their book reports on its craziness, looniness, and insaneness from the glorified and lofty position of never having bought, borrowed, or stolen it, much less cracked its covers to objectively assess its content. Nor could they bring themselves to accept my offer to purchase/send them their own copy to help them overcome this glaring hurdle so that we could literally be on the same page. Let's Roll Forums promotes the theory of hollow towers: they were a 30+ year ruse, never fully finished, never fully furnished, and never fully occupied which they support by pointing at the lack of "office furniture" content in the pile. Milli-nukes or DEW wouldn't care if the towers were hollow or not; they'd decimate content (as observed) in a spectacular fashion.
I sock-puppeted back into Let's Roll forums, so I could subscribe to the threads. The second time they banned me, it was because I pointed out a trend line with the forum owner of manufacturing conflict (e.g., CIT, September Clues, Dr. Wood) for the purposes of removing such areas of research from consideration.
At any rate, you are partially right about this clown "not being tolerated" in 9/11 groups, but you error in both my longevity there and the legitimacy of those groups. They are infiltrated and governed, just like Zelikow's 9/11 Commission.
And damn, you, Mr. QuestionMan, because you cause me to get my clown grease paint all over my keyboard!
++++++++++++++
Only 911 Truth News won't go into energy requirements of the tower's destruction. As such, they won't discuss milli-nukes or DEW. (They purposely edited this out of an early posting of mine.)
If the point wasn't made elsewhere, I'll make it clear here.
If the championed mechanism(s) of destruction do not explain all of the anomalous features (e.g., pulverization, duration of under-rubble fires, vehicle damage, radiation levels), then we do not have all of the mechanisms. We need to keep looking.
Therefore, we need to cognizant of gatekeeping efforts that would stop us from looking.
Señor El Once : do the math to determine the quanties
2011-09-02
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
I gave you a "like", but I take issues with the inference from your last paragraph.
Okay, so a steel girder can be cut with 2 pounds of thermite. How much time did it take? Seems to me it was longer than the total towers collapse time. Kind of hard to control, wouldn't you say?
Kindly have Jonathon Cole do the math to determine the quanties of thermite (or super duper nano-thermite) that would be required to account for the duration of under-rubble fires. Given that thermite acts on steel, have him also explain how this incendiary can account for the pulverization of concrete. Does thermite in any of its forms even react with concrete? Have him calculate the quantities required. From there, we can speculate how many man-trips and time it would take to get this into place. Have him answer why the thermite didn't burn paper, but did manage to float all the way to the ground to make anomalous burn patterns on metal vehicles surrounded by... paper
Occam Razor tells me that two or three DEW devices (powered by nuclear or cold-fusion reactors) per tower would be much simpler. The special ops team would literally be dying to deploy them.
Señor El Once : Now you're writing like a 9/11 Truther
2011-09-02
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
Now you're writing like a 9/11 Truther. A bit misinformed, but a truther no less. Or maybe I'm the duped one; I'll leave that door open, too. Your posting is worthy of a more detailed analysis.
You wrote:
[With regards to how thermite burns...] Not at all out of control. Through experimentation the performance parameters of the thermite could be established empirically, and charges built to burn slow or fast or in between. I'd like to see Mr. Cole experiment with fast-acting copper-jacketed charges.
No disagreement there. However, we haven't seen such experimentation. Moreover, you'll see that a slow burn rate doesn't match the visible evidence and what was needed. As for the fast burn rate, it has the issue that it cannot account for the MONTHS LONG DURATION OF THE UNDER RUBBLE FIRES. This isn't to rule out any form of super duper nano-thermite in the destruction, just that it cannot account for all of the evidence and that Dr. Jones et al are allowing this misuse of it.
You wrote:
Nobody expects thermite to pulverize the concrete.
Nobody who knows anything about thermite expects it to pulverize the concrete, so I'm in agreement. The issue is that something very energetic and with a very low decibel signature did. That mechanism must be sought, else thermite will be wrongly propped up to explain it, and it can't.
You wrote:
Neither the official story nor thermite explains [pulverization].
Agreed. The official story doesn't explain a lot of things. In fact, as you'll recall, the first NIST reports stopped at the initiation of the collapse under the assumption that "by golly, it was aircrafts, and steel weakening jet fuel fires and office fires, and a pile-driving pancaking collapse under the force of gravity and the acceleration close to free-fall."
You wrote:
Dr. Jones estimated that 40 men making 10 trips each could place the necessary thermite. Dr. Van Romero said that a few explosive charges in key places could bring the towers down.
The minimum quantities required to bring the towers down are probably just as these two PhD's suggest: 40 men making 10 trips. (How many pounds per trip?) All of this would be good and well, if thermite were the primary mechanism. It wasn't. You wrote above: "Nobody expects thermite to pulverize the concrete." Something did. Dr. Jones & Romero seem to hint that it did, or allow others to make that leap in conclusions uncorrected. Pulverization of content is a big feature of the destruction. I can guarantee you, pulverization significantly changes the numbers from 40 men making 10 trips.
Therefore, don't misframe this into merely bringing the towers down. The outcomes needing explanation are pulverization, ejection of content horizontally at large velocities, downward acceleration through the path of greatest resistance at near free-fall speed, and duration of under-rubble fires.
This next passage is a bit of a stretch, if not a lie:
Apparently the engineering community agrees, because for three years the conventional wisdom was that a few truss "clips" failed, the floor "unzipped" and a chain reaction started. Under that theory a couple of suicide guys with electric grinding disks could have brought the towers down in twenty minutes.
The engineering community, and the world, were waiting those three years for a viable explanation that accounted for all demolition features. They weren't in agreement, partly because when the scientific question is posed -- "ignoring options U, V, and W, is X plausible?" -- they are going to answer "yes, X is plausible." Were the question formed better -- "Of the options U, V, W, and X, which are plausible and most probable?" -- they are going to answer differently. "Conventional wisdom" wasn't; the story kept changing because all of those hypothesis were clearly wrong, and the truth movement kept poking holes in them.
You wrote:
Why would you expect thermite to burn paper? It would have been used in the core area, inside the elevator shafts, possibly even inside the hollow core columns themselves.
Thermite burns, right? It reacts with steel and generates very high temperatures, right? Certainly temperatures hot enough to burn paper for anything in the vicinity, right? Hell, thermite supposedly (but not really) flipped cars and was attributed to the anomalous vehicle burn patterns, some not at all close to the towers. Why didn't it burn the papers? Or people, for that matter? The reason it didn't was that it wasn't the primary cause. Different energies, forces, and fields were at play on 9/11 that get unfairly (and unobjectively) ridiculed when they are brought up, as you are doing.
You go back to fulfilling your duties as a Q-groupie to lead us astray with:
You are reversing the function of Occam's razor, which acts to prohibit the introduction of extraneous elements such as unproven technologies.
Your first error is that Occam's Razor doesn't prohibit ANYTHING. It just suggests that if two (or more) "causes" can explain the same "outcomes", it is generally the simpler cause that is the source.
Tell me, which is simpler to implement:
[1] 40 men making 10 trips (with x numbers of pounds) and doing-the-Dr.-Romero of getting a few explosive charges in key places and then making at least that many trips again to place a whole mess of explosives all over to assure pulverization [the observed outcome that needs accountability]? Or,
[2] 5 men making 2 trips to set up and aim the DEW mechanisms properly on 2 or 3 levels? Gee, the nuclear or cold-fusion power source could even be placed in the basement and bad-ass extension cords the thickness of power lines run down the elevator shafts.
Your second error is bringing up the claim of unproven technologies. Who are you to say that anything in the Department of Defense's arsenal is unproven. What crock! Of course, you (and I) might have never seen any demonstrations of such weapons or their energy source: top-secret and classified. Your implication is that govt scientists and engineers accomplished nothing from the Reagan Star Wars hay-day (1981) to almost 20 years later (2001); that SDI -- the strategic defense initiative -- was just a public works project for the overly educated with no expectation of developing anything (weapon or otherwise) that could be used; the missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon funds paid for nothing exotic; that PNAC's desire for dominance in space had no weapons to back it up; and that you've given no thought to the malfunction of many a satellite and two shuttle crashes.
Señor El Once : context of the billiard ball physics
2011-09-02
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
When you say that Dr. Wood's billiard ball paper blew her credibility with you, you ultimately blow your credibility in knowing anything about physics. Where was her physics wrong? Hint: it wasn't.
The context of the billiard ball physics was the (debunked) yarn from NIST that the towers collapsed like a stack of pancakes. The billiard ball example explains why NIST's theory holds up neither to Newton nor to observation.
You make a science fiction joke about power sources. You've never heard of small nuclear reactors? They have them in submarines and aircraft carriers. They don't have to be that big.
Cold-fusion? It is a making a scientific come-back. Were we to ask why it ever fell out of favor as a field of advanced study, we would find super-duper nano-thermite discoverer Dr. Jones in that 1989 story, (supposedly) debunking cold-fusion for the US govt and thereby turning off (supposedly) research funding into this promising area.
RADIATION!!!
Neither super duper nano-thermite nor aircraft exit signs account for the amounts and nature of the radiation measured at the WTC. Dr. Jones did a couple of scientific slight of hands in dispensing with this evidence and saying "it wasn't a nuclear bomb." Had he been more precise in his language, he should have said "it wasn't a nuclear bomb of known types X, Y, or Z. This doesn't rule out U, V, or W, or nuclear reactions for other purposes." Had Dr. Jones been scientifically more honest, he wouldn't have redefined trace levels of tritium so that he could say, "the measured radiation was slightly above trace levels." What is ironic is that Dr. Jones laments about the less-than-forthright nature of getting data and accurate information from the govt in other areas, yet inexplicably trusts all aspects of the govt's radiation measurements that he then spins into benign areas and "it wasn't nukes or nuclear." [Cold-fusion redux.]
Yeah, well, the first responder ailments literally put a coffin nail into this nothing nuclear theory.
I hate to keep bad-mouthing Dr. Jones, but he is also the one to repeatedly mischaracterise Dr. Wood's research and ridicule it as "beams from space." Directed energy weapons (DEW) do not have to be space based. But if they were, the massive crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of WTC-4's main edifice (but not its North wing) would have been likely targets.
Hey, if you really want to talk science fiction, how about Tesla coils to power DEW and grabbing energy for pulverization from, say, hurricanes?
You're going to say, "But there were no hurricanes on 9/11 anywhere near NY!"
My answer is that if you watched the news channels on the morning of 9/11, this is indeed what you would be led to believe. The troublesome thing is that Hurricane Erin practically dominated the weather news for the entire week leading up to 9/11, as they tracked its movement coming up the Atlantic coast of the US. On the morning of 9/11, it was at its closest point to NYC and still a very newsworthy item. Were it not for the abrupt change of direction East, it could easily have hit cities North and East of NY. Even without changing direction, Hurricane Erin would have been important to continue to report about for the potential storm surge, for the ocean going traffic, for international air traffic that has to be routed elsewhere, and for the impacts to the airport traffic.
Alas... on the morning of 9/11 before anything involving planes happened, suddenly and in concert, Hurricane Erin became a non-news item for the weather people on all major networks.
Dr. Wood's book is excellent! This quality textbook is worth having just for the 500 pictures correlated to map positions to give us non-New Yorkers a feel for the scope of destruction. I bought it thinking it was mostly disinformation, but that it would have nuggets of truth to bolster my beliefs that 9/11 was a nuclear event (milli-nukes). Turns out, she convinced me of DEW, and neither I nor others have pointed out the disinformation.
And oh! Among the nuggets of truth that I mined, I learned WHY pulverization of the towers wasn't a fluke of an overly redundant overkill covert operation; pulverization was required and a goal. You see, conventional demolitions as well as gravitational destruction would have had LARGE pieces of building falling from great heights with sufficient built up kinetic energy to damage the bathtub that held the Hudson out. A lonely crack would have been sufficient to flood the basement, the subways, and neighboring buildings... and spread radiation and its sources. Turn the towers' content mostly to dust first from the earliest phases of demolition (as observed) and the kinetic energy of falling debris doesn't have cohesive mass to damage the bathtub.
In conclusion, please reserve your judgment of Dr. Wood's textbook until AFTER you have it, AFTER you have read it, and AFTER you have understood it.
Señor El Once : Prove the 19 hijackers involvement
2011-09-02
Prove the 19 hijackers involvement. Prove that the stated planes were indeed the planes causing these woes. Prove the US govt's involvement.
What are your claims for 9/11? They require proof. Chop, chop. Hop to it.
Research Mossad, research 9/11, and you'll see as much reason to list them as a conspiring culprit as our own CIA and military special ops teams. Israel benefited from everything the US was gored into doing, including rendition, torture, pre-emptive strikes, which countries were invaded, etc. Everything America did gave Israel the same right to do with its enemies.
The fact that you so rabidly defend anything even touching on the fringes of Israel or its badder-than-bad-ass Mossad WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION for having such a mild-and-meek opinion of Mossad on 9/11 indicates there's no reason to trust your judgment.
Mr. QuestionMan, you can't back up your ridicule of DEW, your ridicule of billiard ball physics analysis, your ridicule of Dr. Wood, or your support & understanding of nano-thermite (and its gross limitations.)
You should just ignore me and my posts. Otherwise, you'll just dig yourself in deeper and deeper, and discredit all that might have been worthy of NPR listener consideration.
I readily admit that I am a duped useful idiot on several fronts, but owing to this same duping phenomenon, I can be convinced of another truth or story PROVIDING sufficient evidence and analysis is presented. The sticking point is that my opponents (and the 9/11 truth movement) have NOT been able to do so. It isn't as if I haven't been encouraging them, cheering them on, and actively considering what they have to say.
And let me tell you... Nay, let me warn you, I have been around the 9/11 block more than once. I don't want to be the duped useful idiot!!! Unfortunately, online performances like yours mirrors that of Mr. Kays and Mr. Meigs: unconvincing.
Señor El Once : work backward with physics
2011-09-02
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
Your response displays a lack of understanding of the very basic principles of physics that Dr. Wood was conveying: conservation of energy. Either that or your following statement is meant as a deliberate lie.
Dr. Wood's physics was wrong in the billiard ball paper because she failed to allow for the fact that at each impact the mass of each failing floor was added to the accumulated (snowballing) mass of the falling debris, so some point in the collapse any particular floor offered no more resistance to the debris than a window would offer to a brick or a billiard ball would to a bowling ball.
I have her book in front of me where the billiard ball example is reproduced in Chapter 2. She does indeed take into consideration accumulation of mass, and uses this (as an ideal) to refute the govt's explanation.
Remember, at the time this paper was put out, the govt was still promoting pancaking. The pancaking was thoroughly debunked and led NIST to come up with other hypothesis (like the pile driver that is also wrong).
The phrase "accumulated (snowballing) mass of the falling debris" is misleading. Significant quantities of mass were broken off and fell outside, and thus were not part of an accumulated mass pile-driving down. In addition, significant quantities of mass were pulverized, and as dust also did not contribute to an accumulated mass.
The salient point of the billiard ball example was that if you worked backward with physics from the short total demolition time, the only way a "pile driver" could have plowed through all of the lower floors and the supporting structure in that time would be for those floors and structure to not have offered any resistance, which could only be achieved by additional energy to move them out of the way.
I am not qualified to discuss the nuclear angle and I have no interest in studying it.
Despite your lack of qualifications and interest in this area of study, you seem to let this acknowledged ignorance influence your conclusions in how the towers were demolished. You rule out that which you don't understand. Kind of says it all, and certainly doesn't make you right just fanatically dogmatic.
I suggest you purchase yourself a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook. You are precisely the science-challenged audience that her well-written text is aimed at so that you can overcome your ignorance.
Señor El Once : lack of intellectual curiousness makes it seem like "science fiction"
2011-09-02
Mr. QuestionMan wrote in a previous exchange:
I am not qualified to discuss the nuclear angle and I have no interest in studying it.
My response was:
Despite your lack of qualifications and interest in this area of study, you seem to let this acknowledged ignorance influence your conclusions in how the towers were demolished. You rule out that which you don't understand. Kind of says it all, and certainly doesn't make you right just fanatically dogmatic.
Thus, in this posting, when you write:
Your speculations are in the realm of science fiction.
My answer is that your own ignorance and lack of intellectual curiousness makes it seem like "science fiction", but that doesn't make it so.
You acknowledge this fact:
You have a good point in that the pulverization of the concrete is not explained by either the official theory or conventional explosives or incendiaries.
You go on to write this piece of nonsense:
You think your conspiracy theory provides the answers. Fine. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I am interested in facts that can convince serious scientists and engineers of the need for new investigations.
You're only interested in facts? Shit, you state yourself the fact that pulverization is not explained. Not by the government, and not by the tiny conspiracy theory camp where you've pitched your tent. Until it is addressed, your theories -- whatever they are -- are the weaker ones, and thus won't convince scientists or engineers of squat.
And it isn't just pulverization. Only DEW and its energy source address the anomalous damage to vehicles, not to paper, not to humans. In cases, vehicles got flipped. They didn't get flipped because a large blast of air came down from the falling debris. Large electromagnetic fields escaping through the window window slits of the towers can explain it.
I've said all along that I'm a duped useful idiot regarding DEW. I got duped by DEW because it at least addresses in a plausible fashion what was observed and lots of anomalous evidence; it convinced me. (I did study engineering and passed the physics classes relevant to this discussion.) My dupeful nature makes me ripe to be swayed another way, providing it convinces me based on sound math and physics. Your dogma does not. And all of the alternative theories (including the govt's) do not.
Señor El Once : missing layer to the publication decisions
2011-09-04
Dear Mr. Pete,
I do not fault what you have written. Maybe you did not have time to peck in a missing layer to the publication decisions: the editorial board who makes the decision on whether or not a Journalist's efforts are broadcast/published. This editorial board is heavily influenced by the owners of the broadcasting/publishing media.
Here's a couple more missing phenomena. Television news since before the 1980's was reduced to a series of mostly soundbites. The Bush Administration was introducing radically new trends, paraphrased from Rove while the news was investigating one reality, the administration was creating their own new realities. They kept piling it on with over 47 major scandals that would have brought low any other administration before their first term was over, and the soundbitish reporting couldn't / wouldn't provide depth and perspective (e.g., negative commentary), particularly with the backdrop of the patriotic logos and banners of America at War and the Global War against Terrorism to constantly frame President Bush as the War President and to make torture, rendition, indefinite detention without trial, etc. acceptable to a duped American public.
When we consider how their action -- continued under Obama -- shredded our Constitution and America's reputation, their boldness and cunning in how they exploited events needs to be extrapolated and applied to the initiating PNAC "Rebuilding our Nation's Defenses" neo-con manifesto and the coordinated 9/11 psychological operative events.
Señor El Once : limit consideration to forms of explosives
2011-09-04
Dear Mr. McBride,
You ask: "why wouldn't they use the most advanced and classified form of explosives in their arsenal to bring down the WTC towers?"
In the present framing of the question to limit consideration to forms of explosives, then I agree that the most advanced and classified, such as nano-thermite, would be deployed. Where I split hairs is in the extent of such deployment and what other mechanisms were in play.
The framing of this question needs to be adjusted.
"Why wouldn't they use the most advanced and classified mechanisms in their arsenal to bring down the WTC towers?"
They would. I can only imagine the itch to fingers of generals in the military industrial complex to pull the trigger on their toys and glorify in the projected images of the destruction. As precision bombing goes, DEW would be extremely satisfying.
Señor El Once : Off-Topic: Lay on the Smear
2011-09-04
OFF-TOPIC
Evidently this NPR piece with hit-man Jonathon Kay is the lead-off in a series that tries hard to lay on the smear.
Canadian Public Broadcasting was in the tour. Canadian Public Broadcasting TV Station TVO Interviewed AE911Truth's Richard Gage, AIA, Barrie Zwicker (Towers of Deception), Author Paul Zarembka on the program "The Agenda" with Steve Paikin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imj7GwcFW1E&feature=player_embedded
Of course, Mr. Kay gets his clock cleaned in part 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHbZi80IBNU&feature=player_embedded
However, the host, Steve Paikin, exposes his biases in the derailing questions attempting to pigeon-hole his guests and make them appear loony.
Interesting that everything Mr. Kay says is or should be a major flag to viewers, research this on your own and don't be surprised when you discover the truth being 180 degrees from Mr. Kay's words. Towards the very end, things like,
In terms of trust, this idea of moving to a world that values trust. I have trust in the 9/11 Commission Report. I have trust in the public servants who staffed the investigation of 9/11. I have trust in Obama's birth certificate. I have trust in public institutions.
Señor El Once : lead-off ad-hominem
2011-09-04
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
Your lead-off ad-hominem -- the clowns on this board -- was unnecessary. Your speculation about us being clearly poorly educated people who are unable to think critically? Well, gee. Clearly. Maybe you've got a point, but only if you can prove that your education was superior, that you've retained something from it, and that you are able to think critically.
*BEEEB* *BEEEB* *FAIL*
Ah shucks, Gomer! Your over-generalization the answer to every evil in the world "The Jews!" gave you away. Tsk, tsk, tsk. How many times have you been corrected in this straw man that equates Mossad with each and every "Jew" on the planet? And how many times have you persisted? How many times have you attempted to spam this thread with such innuendo?
Funny you should bring up Mr. Meigs and Mr. Kay, because they start off their disinformation campaigns on numerous telly shows with ad-hominem smears of a similar nature, paraphrased "those damn jew-hating conspiracy theorists have no basis in reality!!!" It is no longer a casual wave-off, nothing to see here folks; no need to question Israel. Thanks to your singular efforts here in this forum, we are now tuned to something to see here folks; start questioning what role Israel and their Mossad could have played with the CIA!
And because my clown make-up has been running into my eyes and smearing my keyboard, it is only fitting that we talk about your make-up. You say you aren't a Jew. Then maybe you are a Christian Zionist, eh? Due to your frequency in postings, you are either unemployed (Star War pajama-wearing, Mother's-basement-dwelling...). Or employed as a lobbiest or PR meister clown by the very circus that you try to distract us from. Great work!
Ya know, Bozo, if you'd just take a step back from the keyboard and ignore us, this thread would peter out and NPR could close it. But, NOOOoooo! You have to keep stoking the flames. Next time, just ignore us.
Señor El Once : no business, zero, zip, nada in investigating Mossad and Israel
2011-09-06
Mr. QuestionMan writes:
I don't know who was behind 9/11. That's what we need new investigations to find out.
Yet by your very language, that new investigation has absolutely no business, zero, zip, nada in investigating Mossad and Israel for their potential role in the event.
Ooooh, QuestionMan. I looooved your change in topic to something emotional and irrational.
And you guys with your repulsive answers have been doing a great job of keeping the family members from the truth they deserve.
Where have I seen that before? Oh, yeah. On 9/11/2001 when the govt spokemans was disabusing Peter Jennings (or some famous talking head) from even uttering the words out loud that it "looked like a controlled demolition." The spokesman planted the official story early -- plane impacts, jet fuel fires, melting steel = gravitational collapse at the near free-fall speed -- and then side-steps into (paraphrased)"the tragic loss of life today of those great heroes, the firemen and first responders who lost their lives today..."
Repulsive answers are answers, none-the-less. They solve the equation; they connect the dots; they fill in the blanks; they make sense. As a Christian Zionists contracted to work from home to infiltrate these message boards, you haven't put up any answers that connect more dots.
Remember, 9/11 was a very repulsive event, because anyway you slice it or dice it, America's own govt had a hand in a gigantic ruse that kicked off with repulsively killing (supposedly) 3000 of its own, repulsively demolishing the WTC complex, repulsively destroying SEC and ONI investigations and records, repulsively starting wars against Afghanistan and Iraq where repulsively several orders of magnitude more death & destruction were wrought, repulsively made pre-emptive strikes, rendition, torture, detention without trial, etc. part of the Constitution shredding norm, and repulsively thumbed their noses at us. That the solutions to the who-done-it would be repulsive is only fitting to the trend line.
Señor El Once : Clown was intended as an ad hominem
2011-09-06
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
If one participant (the target) considers it an ad hominem and offensive, then no amount of weasel words is going to get you out of the blame.
Clown was intended as an ad hominem and insult by you in your belittling (and empty) rhetoric, and so it will remain.
Moreover, you have made absolutely zero, zip, nada correlations between answers potentially being in error and the clown profession.
Geez, in order for your clowning conclusion to have any traction, you'd have to prove the first part of your faulty statement; namely, that my arguments are wrong.
What were my arguments, because they kind of got lost in all of your jew-hating and clowning circus distractions? (By design, eh? I've seen this pattern before.)
Seeing how you've given me the opportunity to utter my arguments again (when ignoring me would have been better), they were that the DEW pulverized the WTC content in conjunction with other less controversial mechanisms; Mossad had a hand in the events, because they are the logical skilled entity oursourced and off-shore to turn to and whose nation benefits from all of the shit America does; that neo-con factions within the US govt together with planned it.
Mr. QuestionMan, I do indeed thank you. Whereas you love trying to peg me to Mr. Kay's and Mr. Meigs tired description of loony conspiracy theorist (that even Mr. Kay had to back pedal on as not matching his hypothesis and stereotype), we can peg you as Cass Sunstein style govt infiltration of the internet.
Señor El Once : You have me all confused
2011-09-06
Dear Mr. QuestionMan,
You have me all confused? Are you loony? Are you a bigot? Are you jew-hating? Or are you your typical inconsistent disinformation agent? You write purposely in circles. Case in point:
What I object to is a bunch of loony conspiracy theorists claiming they've already got it all figured out before there's even been an honest investigation.
So, you spend ump-teen postings or more trying to contain inquiries into the Israeli angle by calling it "Jew-hating." Translation from your many postings, Mr. QuestionMan already got it all figured out and anybody questioning Mossad is a "bigot." Those are your words.
But of all looniness and inconsistencies, you circle back around, "the investigation has every right to pursue the Israeli angle." I guess the catch for you is an honest investigation, because you know how the forces are stacked against both an investigation and an honest one.
If your position truly was that the Israeli angle could be pursued, then your constant stirring of the bigoted jew-hating pot here has been more than just a little bit disingenuous.
You conclude with: "You clowns are obstructing the family members' quest for answers."
You know what I say to that? Fuck the family members, and fuck you for trying to capitalize on them here! It is just a cheap trick trying to turn a rational discussion into something emotional and irrational.
The family members had the last decade to get their questions answered and overcome their grief, with the help of settlement money. But they aren't the only victims. In fact, their numbers are small compared to the massive victims we created in foreign lands, on purpose and on the basis of this 9/11 ruse and with reckless disregard for anything resembling laws or morals.
The family member numbers are even smaller when we consider that a significant number of victims -- particularly on the planes -- take on the aura of simVictims, with weak legends and backstories. Such would be fitting with Operation Norwood, because simVictims are easier to manipulate into being "heroes" for the govt's causes. How many of the victims aren't listed in the Social Security Death Index? How many never claimed settlements from the govt, et al? How come none of the family members from airplane (sim)victims are among those seeking answers and all readily agreed to the hush-money terms of their settlements?
Your posting to Berthe, You never heard about the Russians? Well that just proves that the media are dominated by Russian moles, and that people at the highest levels of the US intel apparatus have lots of secret information they're covering up. It just proves who the clown really is.
Also, make sure you scroll down in the
Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD!! reference, because it has the YouTube video of the "5 dancing Israeli's" being interviewed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw
No comments:
Post a Comment