Denial of truth tends to ... invoke crime

"[I]t should be remembered that, in response to the attacks of 9/11, we, as a nation, were the ones who declared "war," made it a near eternal struggle (the Global War on Terror), and did so much to turn parts of the world into our own private hell. Geopolitics, energy politics, vanity, greed, fear, a misreading of the nature of power in the world, delusions of military and technological omnipotence and omniscience, and so much more drove us along the way."
~ Tom Engelhardt

"Perhaps the greatest fantasy of the present moment is that there is a choice here. We can look forward or backward, turn the page on history or not. Don't believe it. History matters."
~ Tom Engelhardt

"The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

The ramifications of gravitational acceleration (freefall) in any of the WTC buildings (and admitted in NIST's final report on WTC-7) suggests that the circle of 9/11 conspirators was much larger and included insiders who provided an additional energy source (e.g., explosives) "to make it [the complete and utter destruction of the building(s)] happen."

Those same insiders slowed and distracted our response to known threats, delayed our investigation, compromised the investigation, feverishly worked to covered it up, and, based on GuitarBill's participation in this thread, continue to distract, disinform, and cover it up.

++++++++++++

GuitarBill chides others not so nicely for "quote-mining" by -- ironically -- copying-and-pasting a section from NIST's final report on WTC-7 that discusses the three stages of that building's collapse. (He posts this three times in one discussion thread.)

Of course, GuitarBill's three years of college physics seems to have left him unprepared to recognize that this very passage, in particular the description of Stage 2, is an admission of "gravitational acceleration" (freefall) in WTC-7, which is 100% in agreement with the 9/11 Truth Movement. NIST lists it as an undisputed fact, but fails to explain how it could be that 8 stories of columns, supports, and materials could suddenly offer "negligible support" (as in, zero resistance) so as to allow freefall over 32 meters.

Caught off-guard, GuitarBill posts in response (three times) "WTC 7 explained". Of course, GuitarBill's advanced degree in mathematics blinds him from recognizing that this copy-and-paste job does not refute NIST's three stages of collapse; it supports it and even quotes from Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST. GuitarBill's "WTC 7 explained" puts things in layman's terms with a personalized time-line, but the gory technical details remain in the NIST Final Report. GuitarBill's copy-and-paste job concludes with a link to Dr Keith Seffen's Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis, which ironically doesn't even relate to WTC-7.

How does the quote go: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, overwhelm them with bullshit."

Inconsistency is a trait of a Disinformationalist.

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney

copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author's Web site: http://www.proparanoid.NET

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

History matters. So does 9/11 and high school physics

"Perhaps the greatest fantasy of the present moment is that there is a choice here. We can look forward or backward, turn the page on history or not. Don't believe it. History matters.
~ Tom Engelhardt

Hear, hear!

We've already got the Bush apologists working double-time in this forum telling us how Bush kept us safe during his administration. True, if you ignore (a) 9/11, (b) anthrax, (c) the death and casualty toll both to US citizens and foreigners in Afghanistan and Iraq, and (d) the bursting bubbles, bank failures, and collapsing economy.

Several people in this thread have already mentioned words to the effect: "9/11 is a root element [of what Tom Engelhardt laments in his article]; 9/11 needs to be re-investigated."

Of course, they've already been met with GuitarBill and his several postings of 9/11 smear videos. (Not his best arguments.)

GuitarBill, being endowed with six semesters of college physics and an advanced math degree, taunted the 9/11 Truth Movement in the discussion to another article with:

"Let's see your pseudo-"physics". I'll rip you apart in less than 10 minutes. Bring it on, genius."

In NIST's final report on WTC-7, it half-buries that WTC-7 had a significant period of time in its collapse that was freefall. Therefore coming from NIST and being more or less in agreement with what the 9/11 Truth Movement has been saying all along, we don't need to argue about this truth or its mathematical calculation.

Here are two questions that the likes of GuitarBill should answer.

(1) What are the ramifications of building freefall?

(2) What are the ramifications of building freefall both in the observed event of 9/11 and the larger political context?

In preparation:

• View the arguments that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth make.
• View the videos from David Chandler, a high school physics teacher.

"Though error hides behind a lie and excuses guilt, error cannot forever be concealed. Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself, and sets upon error the mark of the beast. Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

"Whatever the Obama administration may want to do, or think should be done, if we don't face the record we created, if we only look forward, if we only round up the usual suspects, if we try to turn that page in history and put a paperweight atop it, we will be haunted by the Bush years until hell freezes over."
~ Tom Engelhardt

Why 9/11 discussion is valid

Why does 9/11 keep coming back as a topic in all sorts of discussion threads on all sorts of forums, despite the efforts of others to derail and bury it by any means possible?

Legions of individual 9/11 conspiracy theories can be thrown out without disproving the validity of the case that 9/11 was an inside job. All it takes is one. Evidence is what turns theory into probability.

The laws of mathematics are divine truths that impartially reveal God. Examples from Architects & Engineers for 9//11 Truth, using simple high school physics, are particularly enlightening. The mathematics and Newtonian physics of the collapses of the ~THREE~ buildings on 9/11 are the smoking gun, the DNA, the eternal Truth, the still small voice. Listen.

NIST officially reports -- begrudgingly and half-buried -- that WTC-7 had a significant period of time in its collapse that was freefall, which is what the 9/11 Truth Movement has been saying all along. Therefore, we don't need to argue about this truth or its mathematical calculation.

+++ IMPORTANT +++

What are the ramifications of building freefall both in the observed event and the larger political context?

"Belief produces the results of belief, and the penalties it affixes last so long as the belief and are inseparable from it. The remedy consists in probing the trouble to the bottom."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (discoverer and founder of Christian Science)

This is the reason the 9/11 topic keeps coming back. The (erroneous) belief that 9/11 was perpetrated soley by 19 hijackers has affixed us with penalties: wars, war profiteering, war crimes, deaths, maimings, injuries, Constitution shredding, rendition, torture, ... 9/11 was even participant in the looting of global wealth with stock bubbles, housing bubbles, banking bailouts, etc.

As long as we believe the lie of 9/11, we can be sucked into continual war and bad public policy. Probing the trouble to the bottom requires seeing the 9/11 dot in the clear pattern of lies, disception, and crimes foisted on us by the US Government and the Bush Administration in particular.

To ignore 9/11 truth is to shred everything we individually and collectively stand for as Americans, as patriots, and adherents of some religious faith (like Christianity, Islam).

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
~ Edmund Burke

"It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little."
~ Sydney Smith

"The greatest obstacle to seeing the truth - that 9/11 was an inside job - is not the lack of evidence but what can be called "nationalist faith" - the belief that America is the "exceptional nation," whose leaders never deliberately do anything truly evil, at least to their own citizens."
~ David Ray Griffin

There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"Though error hides behind a lie and excuses guilt, error cannot forever be concealed. Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself, and sets upon error the mark of the beast. Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy

RE: The truth of 9/11-Achilles heel of corporate deception (revisited)

Maybe I shouldn't have thrown that comments about States Rights out there. My Bad.

I was trying to think of why the official 9/11 story would have so many vocal supporters on this forum even in the face on undeniable -- even Divine -- evidence in the form of adherence to the laws of physics. The government's coincidence theory does not, at least, not without cheating and artificially limiting the scope of their investigation and analysis.

The initial answer I came up with -- complete, bare-ass speculation -- was fear and that the 9/11 coincidence theorists (of which I believe you count yourself) might be afraid that our republic will sink into turmoil and chaos, were we as a nation to open our eyes to what we were duped into. We might then give some serious consideration and fresh walk-the-talk to the words of one of our founding documents {emphasis added}:

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...
~ Thomas Jefferson (The Declaration of Independence)

A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
~ Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), Letter to James Madison, 1787

I mean, if the government's 9/11 version can't be defended on its merits, can't be defended by the laws of physics, and can't be defended with evidence (much of which they purposely destroyed), then can it really be defended? Should it be defended?

And by extension, should we be defending the resulting policies and what they duped us into turning into: war profiteers, war criminals, torturers?

So why are people defending 9/11 (and its ugly spawns)?

Why are you defending it?

And what do you think would happen if we as a nation can acknowledge the whole truth about what our government (and their corporate enablers) foisted upon us and the world?

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

P.S. I apologize for lumping you with EncinoM and GuitarBill and the listed offenses they perpetrate in this forum, mostly to derail rational 9/11 discussion.

So, SquareHead, you encouraged me to "PLEASE read the stuff", and on States Rights, I admit to need to reading more. On 9/11, though, it is you who must follow your own advice. Watch the videos I linked. Then we can talk about how far down the 9/11 rabbit hole goes.

The truth of 9/11-Achilles heel of corporate deception (revisited)

[Tweaked from the original for emphasis...]

The real power to persuade and dominate a public remains with corporations and the government through control of the airwaves and domination of most publications by corporate advertisings, while news is restricted to reporting facts, to "objectivity and balance." The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel.

This indeed has been an issue with 9/11.

Every time a government spokesman or agency wanted to speak to 9/11, they could pretty much present their full argument in the corporate media with nary a dissenting or questioning commentator to offer a comprehensive opposing point of view. On the rare occasions when someone from 9/11 Truth was given air time, observe how they were treated:

• They were often marginalized by the "objective" host as early as their introduction, and certainly in loaded adjectives used in the questions and descriptions (e.g., nutty, loony, kooky).
• They rarely appeared alone, but always with someone representing the government's view. Because the host in many cases was not impartial, they were outnumbered.
• The discussions were steered into truly fringe areas of the movement, and the attention-deficit host jumped from one topic to another.
• After the small talk, commercial breaks (lead-out, lead-in), other side rebuttals, fast topic-hops, and detours away from the most solid arguments, the total airtime to present a case dissenting with the official 9/11 view was tiny.

Treatment of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the printed media may have been worst of all. Has Time Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, or the New York Times ever devoted a special issue to this topic from the 9/11 Truth Movement's point-of-view? Have they even ever published an in-depth article (or series of articles) presenting faithfully the 9/11 Truth Movement's case without undermining it in the very same article, not to mention accompanying ones?

Whereas hometown newspapers retained their names, consolidation turned them into mini-McGannetts always drawing on the same pool of articles. The first hurdle is whether local editors would even run the story. The second hurdle is how much hacking they'd do prior to publication. The third hurdle is where they'd run it (e.g., bury it) and split it to make it more difficult for a reader to find and follow.

The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel.

Government spokespeople (and its agencies) wanted the public to "charge forward" into Afghanistan and Iraq [and into neo-con policies provided by PNAC] on the basis of how the United States was attacked 9/11. You were un-patriotic, un-American, and even treasonous if you didn't want pre-emptive war to protect the homeland... and if you didn't want fewer taxes on the wealthy, privatized social security, bail-outs...

Yet whenever someone said, "Okay, let's look at 9/11 in detail" so that we can be sure we're hunting the right witches, those same government spokespeople and agencies said, "Move along, sheople. Nothing to see here."

Whenever 9/11 is discussed in this forum, the unofficial (?) government spokespeople [like GuitarBill, EncinoM, SquareHead] are talented at kicking sand into our eyes with pseudo-science, quasi-definitive official reports, rehashed debunked claims, straw man discussions, and outright lies, and at distracting us into flame wars with their insults.

We have many examples of cover-ups in how government commissions and (scientific) agencies were manipulated to limit the scope and conclusions of their investigations. Adequate and overwhelming evidence has been provided to caste doubt on the government's 9/11 version, such as these three, which are solidly based on the laws of physics:

* WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial

* Downward Acceleration of the North Tower

* WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

The above should really shut-up all defenders and trolls of the governments 9/11 version and turn them into true believers of 9/11 Truth. But it won't. Why?

Fear.

They are afraid of what it will mean to our republic. They're afraid that it will mean massive civil unrest, total chaos, and the attempt at destructive overthrow of all institutions of power. Because those in power will use all in their power to remain in power, they fear the loss of power and stature, if not the oppressive response of government on its people.

I believe that this argument is just more fear-mongering and Kool-Aid for the weak-minded to manipulate patriots and Christians.

The real unspoken fear is the massive reduction in power of the federal government transferred, if not to the states, than to the regional countries that banded together to succeed from the old union in the hopes of forming a more perfect (smaller) union.

States Rights and gaining some autonomy from the (proven misguided) Federal Government and corrupt corporate influence can't be achieved today. So we are left with flag-waving in support of illegal wars, failed drug wars, and other draconically federal policies.

Just like mammoth corporations often require divisions to be spun off into their own businesses, lest the aims of the corporation and of the division become at odds with one another, the United States of America as we know it is also in need of having various regions (one or more neighboring states) with shared cultural values spun off into their own nations.

Thomas "Tip" O'Neill once declared, "All Politics is local." Politics needs to be brought more local. Although such spin-off regional nations sound radical, it would really be pretty much business as usual for you and I and for the governments of our community, town, county, and state.

On a Mission...

In addition to stating the goals of invading Iraq and finding new reasons for when and how America exercises its military muscle for which a "New Pearl Harbor" would garner public support in a timely fashion, the document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" along with others from the Project for a New American Century discussed new realms for warfare, one of them being cyberspace.

Of course, much of the cyberspace warfare discussion was about defending against computer attacks, as well as pre-emptive launching of our own attacks to get battlefield dominance. Control of the means for communication is a key military objective. To that end, though, control doesn't have to be destructive.

You can google Operation Mockingbird to learn about the CIA's secret project from the late 1940's that bought influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and recruited America news organizations and journalists to becomes spies and disseminators of propaganda. However, "The Information Operations Roadmap" is a more recent document about the Pentagon's comprehensive strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information.

From "The Pentagon’s War on the Internet"

"The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet."

Which brings us to 9/11 and some of the comments posted here.

If this forum were infiltrated by the government, what form would that meddling take?

I'll leave Joshua Holland out of the consideration, because he accomplished his journalistic goals of getting eyeballs to his article and the associated ads. Aside from being on the left, he isn't quite in the same league with other entertainers of the right like Rush, Hannity, and Savage, who probably don't believe half of what they spew but who are successful in drumming up controversy, which means more listeners to the ads.

No, a small handful of posters to this forum exemplify much better the spirit of being government trolls. The frequency and ferver of their postings is an initial clue, in that the writing effort was a huge time-suck and major distraction for anyone having a real job, unless their paid-to-post participation here was their real job.

Evidently Internet PYS OPS Panzer Division IV sends their recruits to the Karl Rove School of Online Debate, because their postings reflect so much of its training:

Lesson #1: The first part of any response should be to personally attack the opponent.

Lesson #2: Put incorrect words into your opponent's mouth.

Lesson #3: Misconstrue your opponent's message purposely so as to build a straw man argument that is easier to knock down than your opponent's real argument.

Lesson #4: Take all of the weaknesses in your own position and project them onto your opponent, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the weakness is really yours, you can point to their unoriginality in throwing it back at you.

{Inspiration and creation came later in this volume.}

Lesson #4b: Take all of the strengths in your opponent's position and project them onto your position, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the strength is really theirs, you can point to their unoriginality in bringing it up.

Lesson #5: Rather than addressing your opponent's points head-on, insult their intelligence instead and extrapolate your claim of their lack of intelligence as being the reason why their points fail.

Lesson #6: Purposely mislabel your points as "fact", so that it is harder for your opponent to question it.

Lesson #7: Repeat your lie over and over until it sinks in as a possible truth.

I've seen these lessons played out in other forums as the HATER acronym for "Hype - Associate - Twist - Egg - Repeat", whereby a false association is twisted, repeated, and hyped, mostly just to egg other on. Makes sense to employ such tactics if the motivation of 9/11 falsers and coincidence theorists is pay-for-postings and ending discussions.

A key difference between 9/11 falsers and 9/11 truthers is that those seeking 9/11 truth have a much wider difference of opinion about the events of the day stemming from the extent of their research and knowledge of current affairs. The 9/11 falsers toe the same party line where ever one of their government trolls drew it, while the 9/11 truthers tow many lines to drag the public's conscience into the same realization that 9/11 was an inside con job.

Case in point are the planes. Until half a year ago, I believed commercial aircraft hit the twin towers, but not the Pentagon or Shanksville. Today, I'm a no-planer. I believe that no commercial jets hit the twin towers or the Pentagon. Google "September Clues" and view the analysis of what the media presented to us on 9/11 and shortly thereafter. Learn how Hollywood wizardry inserted tricks and planted story-lines into our collective conscience.

But be that as it may, I can set aside my no-plane beliefs and reach common ground with other 9/11 truthers in saying that the structural integrity of the (three) towers even if hit by real planes should not have failed so completely or so quickly in a physics defying manner.

If the government's official conspiracy theory about 9/11 is true, then we should all become Muslims, because those 19 Islamic hijackers proved in those great and mystical and unprecedented events of 9/11 that their Allah is more powerful than our God in circumventing standard operating procedures on the ground as well as the laws of physics in the destruction observed.

Hermann Goering, the Nazi Reichsmarshall, said:

"It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 truth were very clear. "Feed my sheep."

I'm a no-planer

http://www.loosechange911.com/2009/01/9-11-no-planes-propaganda-on-aes-the-beast-starring-patrock-swayze-whats-up-with-network-television-launching-911-info-in-their-shows-well-and-now-disinfo/

I’m a no-planer. I wasn’t 6 months ago, but as an open-minded person willing to consider the evidence and contradictory views, I became convinced. It boils down to the physics. The physics of the falling towers (including WTC-7) into their own footprints at free fall speed was what convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job. However, the exposure of the doctored 9/11 video footage (“September Clues”) along with the physics of planes crashing into steel towers convinced me that no-planes actually crashed into the towers. We already knew that the Pentagon plane was no commercial aircraft. As for Shanksville Plane, the lack of wreckage, body parts, and luggage suggests it wasn’t a commercial plane either.

But back to the physics. A commercial plane is a little bit better than a flying beer can. When such an object flies into the massive steel structures like the towers, one expects some penetration, sure. But one also expects sudden deceleration and deformation of the aluminum plane as it hits that hard structure. In fact, the force of the deceleration should have torn the wings from the body and certainly the engines from the wings while still on the outside of the building. Certain plane parts should have done an accordian and/or bounced off the building, with the massive engines being the only parts with that enough mass for full penetration.

The CGI we saw on television, much like Spiderman and Superman, had the planes enter the building without deformation at the speeds they were traveling through thin air, which when you think about it, is just as hard to believe as the top floors of the towers traveling through the lower floors without resistance while turning things not just into rubble but into fine powder — a huge energy sink.

Planes traveling at their supposed speed and that low to the ground would have been deafening. Up until the repeat broadcasts worked its PSYOPS through our collective fuzzy memories, people in NY on that day did not hear the planes. The first things they heard and saw were the explosions. And if you’d watch “September Clues”, you can see where raw footage also did not show the planes and where doctored footage covered up their CGI glitches and gotchas.

So, all of this talk about “no-plane disinformation” really needs to be turned around. Those who try to debunk the no-plane concept may really be the spreaders of disinformation.

The reasons for going no-planer and CGI are numerous, like all of the variables and risks of getting a real plane to fly into the towers. More importantly, if the towers were designed to withstand such assaults, then the even greater risks would be the planes getting stuck halfway in the tower or even getting crushed & bouncing off, which in turn would not offer sufficient believable damage that would lead to believable total destruction.
Eye witnesses of the day did report hearing missiles. My speculation is that military planes fired missiles into the towers, whereby the CGI planes would be required to hide the missiles as well as provide an emotional ruse for what initiated the destruction.

We all have hazy pictures of the events of the day. When new evidence presents itself, we can and should all adjust our perception to take it into account. I get the feeling that those people calling no-planes disinformation are simply married to the initial drafts that “Loose Change” was and don’t want to go further down the rabbit hole. “September Clues” doesn’t debunk the entirety of “Loose Change”; it enhances and refines it. Much of “Loose Change” still holds up.

Skepticism over NIST report on WTC-7

The recent NIST reports about WTC-7's collapse on September 11, 2001 is worthy of a discussion.

I will indeed finish reading this NIST draft for public comment of the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. I'm already on page 26 (of 115) and just now reached the end of the front-matter to stumble upon meat in the form of a Preface. The Executive Summary starts on page 33 of the PDF. Chapter 1, Page 1 of this document is 39 pages into the file.

Consider these warning flags of potential document padding.


-------------

1) Let us assume for this point #1 that the document is the God's honest truth. I would welcome it, support it, and defend it. However, would this debunking of a single 9/11 conspiracy theory bring down the 9/11 Truth Movement? Hardly. There are still too many other questionable aspects of the events of that day and the 400 some day delay with hues of cover-up before any investigation started.

-------------


2) Without getting into any substantial meat of that report, the citizens of the United States have valid reasons to be skeptical about its methods and conclusions because of NIST's recent track record of unscientific and biased 9/11 reports and Bush's track record with promoting politics over science.

"A Return to Reason" by Chris Mooney states: "For eight long years, the Bush administration has trashed and politicized the government science agencies. How to kick out the hacks and flat-Earthers and let the geeks reign." It might well have been written about NIST.

"(M)any branches of the US government basically amount to scientific dormitories... In one sense, it's modern technocracy at its most arcane. But given the complexity of decision making today, it's hard to see how you could run the country any other way.

"This also means that by assaulting the science infrastructure, you can hobble government itself, and during the Bush administration, science abuse has been not only epidemic, but endemic. ...

"Consider the National Marine Fisheries Service... UCS took a pool of (some 500 scientists at NMFS) in 2005 and found that more than half knew of instances in which commercial interests had 'inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.' Further, more than a third of respondents said they had been 'directed, for non-scientific reasons,' to avoid making findings that required protection of species in peril, and nearly a fourth had been 'directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information' from scientific documents. ...

"Nearly 100 EPA scientists surveyed by the UCS pointed the finger directly at the White House. As one scientist put it, 'They truly interfere and want to stamp the White House Agenda over every document that is sent to them for review. They have hired their own scientists and play the >>my scientist is better than yours<< game. The EPA has to accept a lot of shit from them to get any documents out.'"

-------------

3) Out of 115 pages, only pages 22-24 (1-1/2 pages) cover explosives as a possible explanation. That is very thin to say the least. They write:

"Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC-7... Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss and two implementation scenarios were considered... Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario location... The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to carry out without detection."

And therein lies the smoking gun of their report.

"Considerable effort was expended" was boiled down to a mere six explosive combinations, two scenarios, then only one scenario (on 1-1/2 pages), because the other was "considered infeasible to carry out without detection"?

The purpose of the report was to document the "how's" if with fires, bombs, or other things. It is not the document's purpose to make distinctions of infeasibility.

If I thoroughly believed what the US government holds that 19 Arabs pulled off 9/11, then it would be certainly infeasible to me that such foreigners could plant bombs in a building with tenants like the FBI, NSA, CIA, SEC, and a NYC Disaster Command Center. On the other hand, I fail to see what would make it infeasibility if the perpetrators were one or more of those tenants (or the boss of those tenants) doing whatever it likes to the building space it rents.


-------------

4) The NIST report dismisses that explosives were used on WTC-7 in part because the blasts would have been heard and would have broken glass at or around the time of the collapse. (FTR, eye-witnesses did report explosions in WTC-7, but they happened much earlier in the day.)

Are we expected to believe that of the three trillion dollars that on September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld admitted that the Pentagon could not account for, none of that money went into exotic news weapons systems, some of which could have been deployed on 9/11 and had different mechanisms and signatures than explosives?


5) Here is my speculation on what the criticisms will be.

Like the earlier NIST reports on the WTC towers, the analysis will be slammed for assuming worst-case scenarios with regards to the extent, heat, and duration of the fires; for over-driving computer simulation variables well-beyond what is realistic and reasonable in order to achieve cascading failure conditions; for mischaracterizing the architectural design flaws; for insufficient review of the literature and historical precedents; for only entertaining one explanation (e.g., fires) rather than other scenarios (e.g., bombs, exotic weapons) that could also sufficiently explain the destruction observed without having to over-drive assumptions and variables; etc.

Given that the report was just released on August 20, it is still early for there to be lots of review by 9/11 Truthers.


-------------


6) From the video I saw a couple of days ago, what struck me was they were talking about conditions leading to non-uniform collapses of floors within the outer rigid steel shell and how the floors pulled the inner columns and other floors into cascading failure yet not the outer walls of the shell.

They want us to believe that the outer steel shell was strong enough to resist any visible deformity from the pulling of cascading collapsing floors that undermine the inner supports, yet this strong shell isn't strong enough to remain standing. Rather than folding and buckling in on itself now that successive failures on the inside have removed or scooped out the interior, it falls like a box into a paper shredder at free-fall speed. Unbelievable comes to mind.

The video of the computer simulation shows localized and non-uniform failure cascading from right to left on the inside of the structure while presumably the outer steel shell remains unaffected without any buckling or folding to the inside.

-------------


7) Although this report has several pages with the names of contributors, don't expect that any of them will be made available by NIST or the government for a public debate/analysis against other academic scholars from the 9/11 Truth Movement who have reviewed the report and found it lacking.

8) Because the NIST report does not have an extensive literature review or historic overview of how fires have affected steel skyscrapers, the reader will have to do that themselves. There is no historical precedent for fires alone bringing down steel skyscrapers, even when the fires such as one in Spain several years ago burned demonstrably hotter and longer; no steel building has failed to the point of falling, much less uniformly, at free-fall speed, into its own footprint.


-------------

The take-away from the above is that all readers should approach the draft of the final NIST report on WTC-7 with a huge grain of salt and tons of skepticism.

It should not have been the job of this report to pass judgment on what is feasible to carry out without detection. They should have remained scientific and covered in detail how different scenarios could have accomplished the same observed destruction. They did not.

Aside from the aforementioned instances of report padding, the document comes across as a magician's trick: keep your eye on my right-hand; pay no attention to the fingers on my left-hand.

Specifically, read all about the work of my right-hand to model scientifically a case where fires could indeed have causes the WTC-7 to suffer a cascading collapse at free-fall speed into its own footprint. But ignore that the fingers on my left-hand deleted details of explosion scenarios and brushed them off as "infeasible" without even providing explanations of the parameters that separate feasible from infeasible.


If you can't win them over with brilliance, then overwhelm them with bullshit data.

This WTC-7 report should bedazzle the general public (and the government trolls), most of whom do not have the educational background and more importantly the patience to dig into this to determine validity; they're easily "Blinded By Science" as the pop song goes.

Discredited Line of Thinking

Craig's line of thinking on all things Bush & now McCain (spanning election fraud, 9/11, WMD, Iraq, Justice Department, Valarie Plame...) has been:

"I won't look at a damn thing, I won't consider the overwhelming evidence, I won't have any doubts about their goodness, I'll keep charging right behind McBush... UNTIL they have been tried and convicted."

The analogy given below was about someone getting away with very serious motor vehicle offenses, public endangerment, and a DUI, because they had a very good lawyer, bribed the judge, and blackmailed the prosecutor.

Aside from calling me "Max", Craig tries to side-step the issue with more ad hominem attacks. He writes across two repetitive postings:

"You are absolutely certifiable... you have tin foil hats at home... You need help man... The guy is certifiable... Bribe the judge blackmail the .... WTF is wrong with you... Another judge bribing conspiracy... Your analogy is ludicrous and your points are left wing , and anti American..."

To assist Craig who has problems making connections, the drunk driver in the analogy refers to the Bush Administration. Is judge appointment for life the same thing as judge bribing?

Bush appointed his own Supreme Court judges with the help of lock-stepping party-line Republican votes, despite large public outcries about conflicts of interests that the judges had. The Justice Department scandal has ramifications about him appointing his own prosecutors. (Is appointment or retention only if you do the administration's bidding the same thing as blackmail?) The justice department appointees in the DC area have been reluctant to arrest Meyers, Rove, etc. for contempt of court for failure to appear to congressional subpoenas in the numerous scandals surrounding the Bush White House, which in turn has almost crippled Congress and forced them to consider re-animating old powers.

In the DUI blackmail analogy, though, the blackmailed prosecutors could also be considered Congress, and even more finely the gang of eight: the House and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders. Keep them in check with a combination of carrots and sticks: political contributions & favorable votes on key issues versus fear (e.g., Anthrax, blackmail because what elected official really has no skeletons in their closet). Control the gang eight and you can put a very tight mussle on WH badness ever getting out of committee and to the floor for debate and votes, as justifiable impeachment resolutions have proven.

Craig wrote:

"Most people who get DUI's just pay their fines do their time and go on with their lives."

"Most people" is not "all people," and it is certainly not special elite people like Bush who have lived their entire lives beyond the law that keeps us regular folks in check. How did average Bush get into those elite schools and into the National Guard? How did he avoid fulfilling his National Guard commitment? Did Bush ever serve time for his DUI and cocaine offenses from the 1970's? What about drunk Cheney blowing his friend's face off with a shotgun?

Relevant to the DUI analogy: Did Scooter Libby ever serve time for his obstruction of justice CONVICTION? His sentence was immediately commuted -- no time served --, which unlike a pardon conveniently keeps his self-incrimination 5th Amendment rights in tact. Had he been outright pardoned, self-incrimination would no longer apply and he would have been compelled to spill the beans on his bosses.

Paying fines to the wealthy and influential is as painful to them as the removal of seashells from a beach is to the sea.

So Craig's one phrase that holds true is that THESE special people who get DUI's "go on with their lives" and go on and can repeat the same offenses without fear of retribution, as the analogy relates.

I agree with Craig on one point that what we're seeing is anti-American, but it is neither left wing, nor right wing, nor any wing. It is. And it is not ludicrous; it is serious. Open your eyes.

Bush & Co. should have been tried and convicted before his second term, but they have been exceptionally skilled at gaming the system, stacking the deck, rewriting laws, abandoning treaties, ignoring international law, accumulating favors, and heading off oversight well before their criminal actions would have to call in those favors and utilize well-planned covers for their asses.

Don't believe me? To see it in action, take another look into the torture scandal. Or look into the Iraq War build-up. These establish a pattern... which can be overlaid onto 9/11. (9/11 isn't exclusively Max's domain, Craig.)

Craig wrote:

"You want to try and convict people in your kangaroo court. In America in case you have forgotten we don't pass sentence on people until after they have been convicted in a court of law."

Blah, blah, blah.

This isn't a situation where neighbor Joe Blow gets lynched by the court of public opinion assisted by media hype without benefit of trial and due process. The Bush Administration isn't neighbor Joe Blow.

When it comes to high elected officials, the ultimate jury is the public.

The public can't, like Craig, be anti-American and shirk their duties of becoming a well-informed citizenry, of weighing the evidence, and of escalating their findings with their representatives.

The public can't, like Craig, sit on their sofa waiting for a "trial and conviction" to be convinced of wrong-doing at the highest levels and then at that point become outraged. If the public doesn't consider the evidence now, doesn't come to some conclusion now, and doesn't raise their voices now, there will be no trial to wait for.

When (over-whelming) evidence influences public sentiment, elected officials have no choice but to conduct the trial that can render justice, or they suffer the vote. There is nothing "Kangaroo Court" about it (unlike what Bush has been pulling at Gitmo.)

... But there's that voting thing again, where games were played to rig the election process in Bush's favor. Aside from it following in line with the DUI analogy of judge bribing, it is another scandal Craig refuses to weigh the evidence on.

Of course, the Bush administration even in the realm of public opinion has left nothing to chance. Another of their known offenses is government propaganda imposed on the American public through fake news reports favorable to administration policies. It is no secret about the symbiotic relationship between Bush and big media (like Murdoch's Fox network). Media desired more relaxed laws and oversight to expand market share, while Bush needed a propaganda outlet.

Moreover, the Bush Administration's collusion with media to suppress unfavorable (9/11, Iraq, WMD) discussions demonstrates again that they aren't a Joe Blow neighbor being railroaded. They have been rigging the court of public opinion. (Former FOX news people complained that they were ordered to have "balance" in the form of 2 conservative viewpoints for every liberal one.)

Show me one main stream media news report at prime time that (a) devoted more than 5 minutes to the 9/11 topic, (b) provided knowledgable 9/11 truthers, (c) wasn't stacked 2-to-1 against the truthers, ~and~ (d) didn't have the "moderator" make at least one belittling comment exposing the network's position, like "nutty", "crazy", "far-out", "conspiracy theory." Fair? Balanced?

We've seen plenty of unbalanced news reports and political opinion panels whose members' positions were entirely 9/11 debunking, but none that were entirely 9/11 truthers. Have we ever seen in prime time a panel of exclusively 9/11 truthers? No. Because suddenly "balanced" reporting becomes an issue for the biased media co-conspirators; the panel has to be stacked so the 9/11 truther gets his time gets cut in half or a third and must waste time fending off attacks before making new points.

You dismiss "September Clues" and media's complicity in 9/11 at America's peril. Overwhelming evidence of government involvement, cover-up, and lies (or monumental incompetence) existed before this revelation. This is just another straw.

CRAIG, YOU PROVE YOUR OWN ANTI-AMERICANISM in not being informed, in not weighing the overwhelming evidence, and in not participating in the public jury that is so essentially necessary to move the heavy wheels of justice into handling corruption at the highest levels, which has the motivation and means to apply brakes and insert crowbars to stop those very same wheels.

What would it take to convince you?

[To Craig Hawley]

If the question were posed to you -- what would it take to convince you? -- your lemming-like answer isn't "over-whelming evidence;" it is "tried and convicted." You won't as much harbor a tiny mustard seed of doubt about the rightousness of the leaders who have given America its present criminal course until some higher authority has passed such a judgment.

Here's analogy for you about why that line of thinking is just plain wrong.

Imagine that you are high as kite (which shouldn't be too hard) or drunk as a skunk. For one reason or another, you find yourself behind the wheel of a car and get pulled over by the police. The police officer notes that your license plates tags have expired, your car has many mechanical defects making it clearly unsafe at any speed, you weren't wearing a seatbeat, and you don't have a driver's license, insurance, or registration. He discovers all of these ticketable offenses before he busts your ass for the DUI, which roadside tests and blood tests at the station confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt. But you get yourself a good lawyer, (you bribe the judge & blackmail the prosecutor,) and you accept a plea deal. Everything gets thrown out except the minor offense of not wearing a seatbelt without you even having to appear in a court of law.

Just because you weren't convicted of the DUI and the other offenses doesn't mean you weren't guilty of them. The officer caught you red-handed.

Now put yourself into the shoes of the police officer or the general public.

When you see the same drunk behind the wheel of the unsafe automobile weaving at high speed down the road right at you and other innocents, do you dismiss the empty liquor bottles thrown at your feet, his known history, his known offenses, and the obvious disrepair of the car -- this body of overwhelming evidence -- just because his connections make it highly unlikely that he'll ever be brought to court and convicted?

By your erroneous line of thinking, you would neither recognize the danger nor do all in your power to prevent death and destruction (of innocents). You would not pull the drunk over, force him to stop or go another course. Geez, you probably wouldn't even be courteous enough to drive in front of the drunk while honking your horn furiously to warn people to get out of his way.

Nope. Because you're waiting for that trial and conviction, you'd be following right behind (just as drunk) making sure to runover and cream those wayward pedestrians, signs, and mailboxes that the drunk missed.

And so you do here in this forum [The CSU Rocky Mountain Collegian].