By Craig McKee
The questions have been debated since the very beginnings of the 9/11 Truth movement.
How do we get people who believe the official story of 9/11 to consider the possibility that what they’ve been told is false? How do we go beyond preaching to the choir? And at what point is it necessary, or desirable, to simplify and/or soften some of the truth to avoid scaring people off?
The question is being asked again (well, at least by me) following the recent release of Massimo Mazzucco’s impressive five-hour, three-part documentary September 11: The New Pearl Harbor. The film brings together evidence from dozens of sources (particularly documentaries and TV programs) on 9/11. It ties this evidence together very nicely and makes it clear and easily understandable, particularly for those who are just hearing the evidence against the official story for the first time.
The best thing about Mazzucco’s film (to his enormous credit he has made the film available for viewing free of charge) is that it has the potential to reignite the discussion of not only what happened on 9/11 but how we can get the message out to a wider audience. And given the current state of the movement, anything that gets people talking about 9/11 again – and re-evaluating what they’ve always assumed to be true – has the potential to be very welcome.
The film avoids some of the more “controversial” issues within the Truth movement by pretty much avoiding alternative theories about what did happen altogether. At its most effective, The New Pearl Harbor clearly shows how the official story doesn’t stand up to verifiable facts and why the “debunkers” have utterly failed to make their case against the “conspiracy theorists” who are claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.
Examining the official story
For well informed truthers, the film goes over some very familiar ground, but it does so engagingly and clearly. Mazzucco starts his film with a look back at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and then lists 12 things that this event has in common with 9/11. He goes from there to examine the problems with the 9/11 official story, as pushed by the government and the news media.
In part one, he covers the issues of air defense (the military drills, the total lack of any interception), the hijackers (lack of any proof that the alleged hijackers boarded any planes, their inability to actually fly an airliner, missing black boxes), and the airplanes (real passenger planes or drones, impossible speeds, cell phone calls).
Part two looks at the Pentagon (impossibility of a 757 impact, absence of surveillance videos, damage analysis), Shanksville (no plane at crash site, the small white plane, bomb or crash?), and begins the examination of what happened at the World Trade Center (asbestos in the towers, Silverstein, the NIST case, claims the buildings were fragile).
And part three continues with the towers (controlled demolition, explosions recorded by TV cameras, extreme temperatures, diagonal cuts in beams, and lots more) and Building 7 (freefall proved, the bogus NIST simulation, foreknowledge of the destruction).
In each case, Mazzucco presents the arguments made by the “debunkers.” But rather than just leaving it there as many mainstream reports have done, he then points out the holes in their arguments, ending with a question that purveyors of the official story should be pressed to answer. There are 50 questions in all.
(One thing that makes it very easy to watch this film is that on his web site each of the film’s three parts comes with a handy index with a time stamp for each subject covered. For this reason, I would recommend watching the film on Mazzucco’s site rather than on You Tube.)
Here are just a few of the interesting points effectively conveyed in the film:
- NIST’s claims about the “collapse” of Building 7 are based on data that has been kept secret and therefore cannot be independently verified by other scientists.
- Their computer models are clearly inconsistent with the visual record in the case of Building 7. Also, their own data shows that the fires that were supposed to have led to the initiation of collapse had largely burned themselves out more than an hour before the building fell.
- The new phenomenon claimed by NIST, the fire-induced collapse, has not resulted in any changes to how steel-framed buildings are constructed post-9/11.
- The “hat trusses,” the structure of interlocking girders at the top of each of the twin towers connecting the vertical steel columns to each other, were not found in the rubble even though there was nothing above it to crush them.
- Even though the military knew by 9:03 a.m. that two aircraft had been flown into the twin towers and two others were hijacked, there was no effort made to recall fighter jets that were being used in exercises in the U.S. and Canada.
- Not only was molten steel still present until three months after the event, but there is clear evidence of molten concrete, which requires enormously high temperatures that can’t be accounted for by simple office fires.
- The damage to the Pentagon could not have been made by a plane the size of a 757, nor could the plane have been flown into the building by a pilot, Hani Hanjour, who could not even fly a two-seater Cessna.
- Claims that explosions at the bottom of the towers could have been caused by jet fuel pouring down the elevator shafts are without merit.
Mazzucco unveils the information very effectively by the order he selects. For example, before getting into all the evidence for the destruction of the twin towers being the result of a controlled demolition (which comes towards the end of the film), he goes into the problems the buildings had, including the reasons why the cost of removing all the asbestos from twin towers would have been prohibitive. He also goes into the oh-so-convenient acquisition of the towers by Larry Silverstein just six weeks before 9/11 and the insuring of the complex against total destruction from terrorism. Armed with this information, the viewer finds that the demolition has a context they may not have been aware of.
Mazzucco has already produced one film about 9/11 called Global Deceit (2006), which aired on a mainstream network in Italy. This film, he says, brought questions about the truth of 9/11 into the mainstream discussion for the first time in his home country.
With The New Pearl Harbor, he says he wishes to provide a resource that media can go to once they become willing to deal with the subject. He believes this will happen once a demand is created for the information (he is convinced that media are interested first in what will bring them an audience – I’m inclined to think that this subject will not be given fair treatment in the media anytime soon).
Mazzucco is the first to admit that some in the movement will take issue with aspects of the film because important areas of research are not addressed. But he does make it clear what his criteria are for the choices he has made.
As a recent guest on a special conference call of the 9/11 Truth Teleconference (a group of truthers from all over North America who discuss 9/11 issues monthly), Mazzucco explained that there was a lot he would like to have included, but he had to choose an approach that would have the best chance of making an impression on the general public – and eventually on the mainstream media.
“Whether it’s right or wrong, I’m convinced of the process of the choices that I’ve made,” Mazzucco said on the call.
The burden of proof
The “debunkers” featured in the film include Jim Meigs, David Dunbar, and Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics (The magazine produced the book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts) as well as three prominent European defenders of the official story: Jérôme Quirant of France, and Paolo Attivissimo and Massimo Polidoro of Italy.
The film is most effective in how it points out the holes in the arguments of these disinfo specialists as well as the areas where they appear to knowingly ignore key information that contradicts their claims.
Mazzucco deliberately avoids offering alternative theories to explain how this 9/11 conspiracy was carried off by the real perpetrators. He says that he chose this approach because he didn’t want the burden of proof to fall on the Truth movement. He gives the classic example of French researcher Thierry Meyssan’s statement that he thought a missile had hit the Pentagon.
“From the moment he made that statement, three-quarters of the debunkers have used that to put the burden of proof on us, or on him. And now it’s us who have to prove it was a missile,” he says.
“By putting the ball into the other side’s court, you’ve delivered the message that a new investigation is needed.”
(His approach takes me back to when I started Truth and Shadows in 2010. In the early months of the blog, I wrote a lot of articles that were aimed at people who weren’t aware of the case against the official story. I wanted to share what I had learned with as many people as I could in the hope that they would be intrigued and want to look into the subject further.)
Avoiding ‘no crash’ at the Pentagon
While Mazzucco does an effective job of demonstrating why a 757 or comparably sized airliner could not have caused the observed damage to the Pentagon, he (very consciously) omits any reference to what is known as the “North of Citgo” evidence uncovered by Citizen Investigation Team. A number of credible witnesses interviewed by CIT in their film National Security Alert described the approach, complete with right bank, of a large airliner to the north of the former Citgo gas station.
This northern path is totally inconsistent with the official flight path and with the damage trail, which included five felled light poles. Mazzucco says he is a supporter of CIT’s work but adds that getting into the NoC evidence would have complicated the case considerably for those just being introduced to this area of 9/11 evidence.
“The work that Craig Ranke (of CIT) has done on the 14 witnesses for the north path is some of the most solid, irrefutable evidence that one could ever assemble on 9/11, period,” Mazzucco said on the conference call.
“But the problem with the north path … if you introduce the north path, then you also have to introduce a possible flyover. And you have to explain somehow that the light poles were severed or taken down at a separate time. If you bring all that into the mind of a general audience, it becomes weaker in my opinion, not stronger, to keep it simple and to say: the plane did not fit, you must acquit.”
For the same reason, Mazzucco explains, he avoided exploring the nanothermite issue and instead stuck to why the official explanation of the towers’ destruction could not be true.
There are clearly reasons to see parallels between this film and the more recent work of 9/11’s most prolific researcher, David Ray Griffin. The film carries virtually the same title as Griffin’s first book on the subject (The New Pearl Harbor). Mazzucco is also a member of the Consensus 9/11 Panel, which was co-founded by Griffin (Mazzucco mentions the Panel near the beginning of his film). Another connection between the two is that neither mentions the research of CIT in their most recent work.
Problematic language
The area that concerns me most about the film is Mazzucco’s use of language. For example, the film frequently refers to “the terrorist attacks” of 9/11, which I would argue reinforces that idea people already have that the event was actually an attack carried out against the United States by actual Muslim terrorists (he has stated that some would have wished he’d used “terrorist events” instead, but I think that only addresses half the problem).
Those who cling to the idea that the “inside” perpetrators of 9/11 are also “terrorists,” are, I believe, missing the real issue. That is that the word means one thing to the vast majority of people: an attack on the country and its people as well as its symbols of power. In the case of 9/11, an illusion of an external attack was created. (Of course, false flags can also come in the form of internal “attacks” from supposed domestic extremists as we saw with the Oklahoma City bombing.)
Mazzucco also refers to “the hijackers” and “when the Pentagon was hit at 9:37.” (I don’t believe it was hit by anything; I believe explosives were planted in the building to simulate damage that would have been caused by an actual crash.) He deals with the problem by putting a disclaimer at the beginning of the film saying that whenever these statements are made in the film, it is only the “official version” that is being referred to, “not necessarily what happened on September 11.”
On the conference call he stated: “What we call the official version has been somehow embedded already in the subconscious of people, like repeating the same thing for 12 years. To many people, young people especially, this is quite simply “the truth.”
“So I think it’s best in the minds of the audience, to make it more simple and more easy for them to follow the procedure, so to speak.
“You first acknowledge the official version as it is and then you ask the question that actually disproves or puts into question the official version rather than including your own doubt in the narration itself … So this is why I had to put the disclaimer in, because if I hadn’t put the disclaimer in I’d have everybody jumping down my throat.”
Hmm. I’m not sure the disclaimer does it for me. While I sympathize with the problem of having to use “allegedly” numerous times in the film, it seems to me that using terminology that suggests something is factual when the very evidence being presented refutes that it is, is problematic. For example, he refers to “the hijackers” at the beginning of the film and then immediately calls into question whether these people were actually on the planes at all.
But this is something we’ve seen often within the movement. Griffin’s Consensus Panel agreed to modify some of the wording on its web site about “when the Pentagon was hit” after concerns were raised by the 9/11 Truth Teleconference. (I’m also guilty of this in some of my early articles, in particular with respect to “the hijackers.” I’m careful now not to use that kind of terminology.)
Mazzucco also takes care not to claim the U.S. government “did 9/11” because he believes this will meet a “wall of incredulity” and be rejected by the general public. For this reason he refers instead to “rogue elements” within the government who pulled off these crimes.
I do not agree with this. To suggest it was rogue elements is to say that it was just a few bad people who stepped out of the usual power structure to pervert the system and the government to achieve their own nefarious ends. (We see this distinction often in Hollywood propaganda all the time to excuse the real criminals who run our world – a great example being the Bourne films. In those, it isn’t even the CIA that is programming assassins, it’s a “rogue” group inside the agency. Of course, they are exposed and punished …)
It does go without saying that the number of people within the government who would have been active and knowing parts of the 9/11 conspiracy would have been relatively small – but that doesn’t make those involved part of a “rogue” effort.
Despite these issues I have with some aspects of Mazzucco’s approach, I still feel I can recommend this film enthusiastically to anyone who wants to better understand why the official story of 9/11 is indefensible. He has made a real contribution to the effort to awaken people to the deception, and perhaps his film will lead to a broader discussion about how we in the Truth movement can do a better job of getting our message out.
Fine stuff, Craig. I agree with most if not all of what you say here.
With regard to the word “terrorists.” Certainly, any way you slice it, they were acts of terrorism, meant to instill fear into the hearts of the masses. They were events used to destroy the freedom-based foundations of the country, the very motive of which the govt accused the alleged “Muslim terrorists.”
But, unfortunately, the propaganda machine, over the decades, has been successful at conflating “terrorists” and “Muslims” to the point where people don’t see the difference. I remember when this language issue was discussed a couple years back on this blog, and Sheila left a comment about how in Virginia, you can get license plates that say “Fight terrorism.” Of the hundreds (thousands?) of Virginians who have that plate, probably not one single person takes it to mean, “Expose the white men wearing suits and ties in our government who perpetrated the false flag known as 9/11.”
Regarding omission of the NoC evidence: well, since the film does such a good job at showing how a 757 didn’t hit, it’s too bad that this evidence wasn’t included as well, though I do understand his reasoning. He is of the school of thought: “The flyover conclusion, even if true, could turn the public off.” Well, Craig explains how the controlled demolition evidence was presaged by the circumstantial evidence about Silverstein, the asbestos, the insurance policy, etc. so that there would be some context once the plunge into the physical evidence was taken. Well, likewise, after doing such a thorough job of showing how a 757 didn’t cause the damage, the issue of “whatabout eyewitnesses who saw a 757” could have been resolved with introducing NoC. The flyover wouldn’t seem so crazy in light of (1) the analysis of the photos and (2) the witnesses’ flight path.
All that being said, I nonetheless appreciate his strategy of keeping the ball in the “debunkers'” court. Speaking of which, I always use scare quotes around “debunkers” since they don’t really do any such thing. If I want to avoid using scare quotes on an annoyingly frequent basis, I’ll simply call those people what they are: anti-truthers.
Good article Craig.
Very good article Craig, congratulations.
I haven’t seen this film, as I have “technical problems” with viewing long videos on the web.
I am in agreement with you though, as to your critical aspects and reasoning thereof, and also in making an enthusiastic recommendation to see the film.
I think that those who believe and accept the official narrative of 9/11, are a long way from being introduces to the real nature of the architecture of political power in the modern world.
It is in fact their misapprehension of the way the world really works that makes them saps for a false flag like 9/11. It is a long road of study to finally get to a deeper understanding of the completely delusional paradigm we inhabit here. 9/11 can be an opening to such study, for those who care, and are willing to rethink everything they have been told. There is that ‘catch 22’ aspect of which comes first.
I will be making an attempt to watch at least part of an episode. But I have constant stutter and jitter problems with web viewing.
\\][//
I really don’t know what I think of the production. Mazzucco spent three solid, exhausting years doing the work to produce this and I have to appreciate that. Nevertheless, the lack of attention to the truly scientific work that has been done regarding North of the Citgo gas station seems to reflect a feeling the people cannot easily accept that evidence. I don’t agree. In a sense, debunkers have won a point.
Second, I saw the production when it was first released several months back and came out with the feeling that it is so hard hitting (like a machine gun) that the viewer isn’t left with time to breathe. And folks new to 9-11 need to be able to breathe.
Third, the use of debunkers seemed to be almost a set-up, i.e., it was done in a manner that did not feel real to me. A friend of mine new, but very sympathetic, to the 9-11 issue wrote me in October, “although I can see the relevance of inserting the ‘debunkers’ counter-explanations, I found myself almost repelled by the man who represents them, both because of his personality and because what he said repeated what was already shown and argued against.”
Cheers, Paul
P.S. to Adam S.,
I contest the phrase of yours about “freedom-based foundations of the country”. You can start with “12 Years a Slave”, but there is a lot more emptiness to this (frankly) mostly propaganda than you seem to realize. But this is not the subject of the blog.
Hi Paul,
Granted, while I do like the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I do often wonder how the Founding Fathers could talk about men being free whilst owning slaves. I guess we as a species were less evolved. I dunno.
Adam
The concepts of freedom and slavery were hardly new!
Freedom from England was a relatively new idea but the concept of a “free man” goes at least back to ancient Rome, which also had slaves. Make that Greece. No, Babylon (Hammurabi refers to free men and slaves). In Rome, the law was that possession gave you title; if you could capture your neighbor then you owned him (and vice versa). So he’s in chains, you’re not; he’s a slave, you’re free. What’s hard to understand?
Life sucks, but some’s lives suck more than others, I guess was the general idea.
Paul, I agree that the time spent on debunkers seems like a waste to those of us who already know they’re spouting BS. But for those brand new to this information, the debunkers serve an important role.
I often find, when telling someone about some shocking truth that they don’t believe (such as 9/11), that they want to hear “the other side.” (The assumption being that I’m not giving the full story, apparently.) Their knee jerk attitude is that of course, I’m wrong, and if only we had some debunkers here to point it out, that would be obvious. Well, all of us here know that that isn’t so and they make their case on a wing and a prayer. So showing the paucity of the debunkers’ arguments is probably helpful for newbies.
Sheila,
Thanks, and I understand the theory of your comment. But presentation matters and this or any DVD has to choose what debunking to present. I personally felt that it came off, in this case, close to a ‘set-up’. Perhaps others don’t feel that way about the presentation and that is fine.
In any case, I also offered one newbie’s reaction.
I agree, Sheila. The sheer ridiculousness of the anti-truther (or simply anti-truth; I prefer this term to “debunker” even with the scare quotes) talking points should be pointed out at any possible opportunity. David Griffin, in 2007, thoroughly destroyed the hollow Popular Mechanics propaganda literature. However, even in 2014, people still promote the Popular Mechanics literature as if it were a thorough and as-of-now unchallenged work of investigation, the “ultimate nail in the coffin to the truthers.” Some people who promote it are deliberate propagandists who know PM is BS. However, some indie bloggers, who are not deliberately aiding in the cover up, will write a little essay about how it’s impossible for governments to pull off massive conspiracies, etc., and will then link to PM, often opining that they admire our passion and commitment in calling for accountability, but that we’ve been “duped” by the “9/11 conspiracy theories” and how IF ONLY we would just read Popular Mechanics’ excellent book, we would see the light and redirect our activism towards animal rights, the environment, or focusing exclusively on the issues of WMD lies and use of torture, as the path to getting the Bush junta behind bars.
Another thing is that few people read books at all anymore. I think far more people will see this film than have or will read Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. So yes, it’s very strategically good to knock down the anti-truth talking points and put the ball back in the court of those who promote the official story, and this film does do that more superlatively, on the evidence it does cover, than just about any 9/11 documentary out there.
Me personally, I like a hard-hitting film, and did before I was a truther (maybe that’s my characteristic that made me receptive to the evidence). That’s why I became an instant fan of Michael Moore after first seeing “Bowling for Columbine” in 2002. By the closing credits, my mind was so blown that it felt like it was exiting a roller coaster ride.
@Paul Zarembka
You won’t be surprised that I agree with some of what you say about the ‘debunkers’ and set up aspect of this video. What I can’t agree with is the idea of the description of this ‘NOC’ evidence. Surely an investigation that arrives at conclusions by ignoring the evidence against those conclusions can’t be regarded as having credibility and can hardly be described as scientific. Aren’t there certain criteria that have to be met in the evaluation of evidence in any sphere in order for the conclusions to be said to be ‘proven’ or have some kind credibility ?
Great post. Will seek out this one.
This article is very thoughtful. However and with all the respect and admiration I have for Craig, I’ll offer important amendments.
1. To Craig’s point, 9/11 leaders routinely preach to the choir and Mazzucco is no exception in “September 11 the New Pearl Harbor.” I propose that one of their major challenges is to get the choir to sing. The overwhelming many political activists cognizant of 9/11 dedicate their time, money and personal energy to problems that 9/11 would nullify, starting with the continuous U.S. warmongering. Many of these problems happen to be wedge issues that pit them against each other, so conveniently for the Master 9/11 conspirators. 9/11 leaders have yet to find a method to teach 9/11’s paramount importance over just about anything else. “September 11 the New Pearl Harbor” is very good, but stays short of proposing such a method.
2. “September 11 the New Pearl Harbor” deftly rebuts many arguments by prominent 9/11 censors and fanatics, but only glosses over their trump card: they hold the bully pulpits that 9/11 leaders badly lack. Reminding 9/11 activists of the formidable power of their opponents would do them a big favor: if anything, they would reflect on that obstacle and search for methods and tools to effectively sap the prestige of the professional liars and useful idiots that nurture the popular faith in the mythical attribution of 9/11 to Osama bin Laden’s fanatical hijackers.
3. The segment that compares Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is interesting, but is likely to backfire with the general public. The abundant official documentation that clarifies Pearl Harbor is largely unknown to the general public — how cleverly are history schoolbooks written! — and requires laborious personal research to be found and verified. This approach will mislead some 9/11 skeptics into falsely believing that understanding 9/11 will require the same amount of tedious intellectual effort. The opposite is true: anybody who can watch YouTube will understand 9/11 with minimal help after having been exposed to Building 7’s videos. In short, it is not Pearl Harbor’s essence that legitimizes questioning 9/11, but the exact opposite: it is 9/11’s essence that legitimizes questioning Pearl Harbor.
Love,
“In short, it is not Pearl Harbor’s essence that legitimizes questioning 9/11, but the exact opposite: it is 9/11′s essence that legitimizes questioning Pearl Harbor.”~Daniel Noel
It’s not that I totally disagree with this statement – it is that there is no “one size fits all” garment when it comes to what approach will work in opening eyes. Some people need to be marinated for a long time, some need a special switch pulled…some people would rather die than face up to the hard truths.
“How can a billion Justine Bieber fans be wrong?” — PR. The PR power is on the other side. It engulfs everything in this culture; entertainment, education, what is fiction-what is fact; what is ‘good’ what is ‘bad’, what is ‘pretty’, what is ‘ugly’…what is ‘dead’, what is ‘alive’…
what is ‘truth’, what is ‘jive’.
\\][//
Primarily to those having trouble viewing the films:
There are several ways to surmount technical problems watching long videos on the internet– best by downloading files and watching when convenient–easily done by various methods.
I see that the film appeared available at the internet archive for some time… divided into five parts.
https://archive.org/details/scm-371968-september11thenewpearlharbor-
Looking back over the years, I’ve been impressed by very few films on 9/11… most all have been flawed by shallow political perspectives (on the right and left), by poor construction and style (deceitful, immature, histrionic, or inappropriately jazzy), or by inattention to significant details or questions.
I’ve generally liked Barry Zwicker’s films starting with The Great Conspiracy.
Another favorite was an elegantly reasoned but ephemeral short posted by a Genghis6199 which juxtaposed archived clips of the making of an airliner and the heavy construction of the twin towers. I suppose it evaporated from the ‘net because it incorporated a proprietary theme song from the movie Rocky. Its message was simple: airplanes don’t destroy skyscrapers
Another fascinating video which elicited very little interest and widespread reticence to discuss was “Amy Goodman watches WTC-7 Implode.” (After disappearing, the film, absent credit or documentation, appears to have been reposted on YouTube in an altered, unsounded state.)
If the undocumented clip was authentic, it, for myself, encapsulated in a nutshell disturbing questions about the silencing of the media– including the so-called “alternative media” to questions about 9/11.
Dear Craig:
Very glad to see the review of Massimo’s film!
You are doing a great service; keep at it!
It’s getting closer,
Elizabeth
Thanks very much, Elizabeth. This film is certainly a positive addition to the fight.
Personally I think Mr. Mazzucco has already exemplified the only viable way of “getting our message out.”
As Thomas Pynchon so oft-quotedly said, if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers. Mr. Mazzucco, in his film, seems to be asking the right questions. He deserves high praise indeed.
Thanks for the article, Craig. You hit all the major points.
When I first heard about Mazzucco’s film, I was turned off. It sounded like it was going to be of the LIHOP variety, i.e., the government let it (the official version of 9/11) happen on purpose. But as it turns out, the film is so much more than that. Excellent overall. I enjoyed it tremendously.
The most chilling moment of the film for me was the scripted cell phone call from flight attendant CeeCee Lyles who broke character and whispered surreptitiously at the end of her voice mail message, “It’s a frame.” (DVD One at the 1:53:30 mark, here http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167 ) Earlier the film asks, “What happened to the passengers,” and acknowledges that no one (outside the inner circle of perpetrators) can answer that. What did happen to CeeCee and the rest of the passengers, we can only speculate, and the thought of that aspect horrifies and sickens me more than any other.
i remember back in college taking a communications course called “Persuasion and Attitude Change.” One of the key tenets was that to change someone’s point of view, you have to present what the other side is saying and show the weakness in their position. With his focus on the debunkers, Massucco does that quite effectively, and I think this is an excellent selling point for newcomers.
re “With The New Pearl Harbor, he says he wishes to provide a resource that media can go to once they become willing to deal with the subject. He believes this will happen once a demand is created for the information (he is convinced that media are interested first in what will bring them an audience – I’m inclined to think that this subject will not be given fair treatment in the media anytime soon).” I agree with you. The media is in the pocket of the powers that be, acting as a public relations firm (aka propaganda mill) while masquerading as a free press. The media will never come on board unless there is an official investigation that finds, for example, that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
Can we ever get such an investigation, and if so by whom? Well, our latest effort here in NYC is about to get underway, a new NYC CAN petition drive. If successful the effort would force the NYC Buildings Department to investigate the collapse of Building 7 (and any future hi-rise collapses). We’re just getting started, but think we can make it happen. If so, and things go well, we have a shot at exposing 9/11 for what it was, an inside job. Something tangible to work at, something TO DO. But we’ll need a lot of contributions to make it happen, probably in the neighborhood of $250K, the vast majority of which would be spent on collecting the required number of NYC voter signatures. You can read about here: http://highrisesafetynyc.org
–d
I would love to know how an American history book intended for high school age students will treat this say, only 10 years from now.
And will students reading that book believe the story?
I don’t have kids and probably won’t anytime soon, but if I did, and if a school teacher tried to indoctrinate my kids with the official story of 9/11, the school and community would be hearing from me and I’d do all I could to milk the issue for publicity. I’d be sure to make the rounds with AJ, Ventura, Kevin Barrett, Abby Martin, Corbett and anyone else. I’d likely get on the local news and it might spread the ripple effect and get people thinking within my community. And I would take a child out of a school system in which a person was required to answer “Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda” to the question on a test: “Who were the chief masterminds behind 9/11?”
Well Adam,
That IS the way schools are today. And if they aren’t essentially the same way ten years from now it will most likely be because “civilization” has collapsed.
Look up John Taylor Gatto. Last year I read his book; ‘Weapons of Mass Instruction: A Schoolteacher’s Journey through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling’ (2008). [ISBN 0-86571-631-5]
I can’t recommend it too highly. It touches the same ground as Iserbyt, Antony Sutton; ‘The Dumbing Down of America’ – and ‘Skull and Bones’. The central issue is the importation of the Prussian model of Kindergarten indoctrination, or ‘factory schooling.
This was a project headed by the tax-exempt foundations, like Ford and Rockefeller, etc.
The totalitarian situation certainly didn’t come about by happenstance here.
\\][//
Gatto’s Main thesis
What does the school do to children? Gatto states the following assertions in “Dumbing Us Down”:
It confuses the students. It presents an incoherent ensemble of information that the child needs to memorize to stay in school. Apart from the tests and trials that programming is similar to the television, it fills almost all the “free” time of children. One sees and hears something, only to forget it again.
It teaches them to accept their class affiliation.
It makes them indifferent.
It makes them emotionally dependent.
It makes them intellectually dependent.
It teaches them a kind of self-confidence that requires constant confirmation by experts (provisional self-esteem).
It makes it clear to them that they cannot hide, because they are always supervised.
He also draws a contrast between communities and “networks,” with the former being healthy, and schools being examples of the latter; in the United States, networks have become an unhealthy substitute for community.
\\][//
My teenage son said that his history teacher usually told the students that they did not necessarily need to believe what he taught, that they should think for themselves and encouraged them to investigate. Unfortunately, that teacher was snubbing the administration and didn’t care, because he was due to retire the next year. I am so glad that my kids have had a few enlightened teachers to make up for the bad ones.
Charles, the children in my life tell me that Muslim terrorists did 9/11, and they know because they were told so by their teachers.
The psy-op being perpetrated on the American people goes beyond what we think of as “journalism.” Propaganda pervades education, entertainment, sports, medicine: we are surrounded by a web of lies.
I think you for sharing that with me, but God, I find it disheartening.
My nephews, 11 and 13, are happy to tell you that the ‘Illuminati did 9/11’, though of course they live in New Zealand. Certainly I would despair of any child growing up in America these days.
I actually asked one of my 8th grade music students a couple months ago (after I knew I was leaving the school and could ask such things with little to no repercussion) what schools were teaching re 9/11. She told me that her school didn’t even focus at all on who caused it, but rather, how things had changed since 9/11. That gave me a bit of hope, I suppose.
I noticed when I was growing up, that in school, on the “social studies” years when the focus was American history (5th, 8th, and 11th grades for me), the teachers would spend so much time on the period from pre-1492 up until about World War I, that anything more contemporary than that would be jammed in quickly during the last few weeks of the school year, in an extremely cursory fashion.
I’m sure the PTB are more than happy for American schoolchildren to be memorizing characteristics of various native tribes, or which explorer discovered which part of the New World, or what the dates were of certain Rev. and Civil War battles. The less they know about their dark contemporary history the better. I’d say it’s not an accident that I had no idea what Vietnam was about even after graduating from high school. And I even went to a private, “prestigious” high school
With todays’ lack of critical thinking and analysis skills, likely future children will be soaking up anything anyone tells them.
American text books for school age children are edited, and approved with a frightening degree of stupidity.
Regarding Language
I think another piece of language that could do with some revision in the 9/11 truth movement is the tendency to label the official story the “official conspiracy theory” or OCT. This term was coined by David Griffin in a speech (or series of speeches) back around 2007 or so, when he wrote his rebuttal book to Popular Mechanics and was promoting it. Pretty soon, the abbreviation “OCT” started showing up on comment sections in 9/11 blogs everywhere, whereas prior to Griffin’s coining the term, people simply referred to the “official story.”
I totally understand the reason why Griffin coined this term: he wanted to neutralize the propagandistic nature of the term “conspiracy theory,” and to show that indeed, the official story is itself a conspiracy theory.
But I think this is wrong, after years or reflection, and here’s why.
A theory, whether it’s mathematical, scientific, or one which surmises who committed a murder, is something that is put forth sincerely. When people honestly believe there is enough credible evidence to formulate such an opinion, they put forth a theory: the Pythagorean theory, the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity. Even if the theory turns out to be wrong, it is offered by the theorist to the world earnestly, to be evaluated and see if it stands up to scrutiny.
However, the official story of 9/11 is no such thing: the people who put forth the official “theory” of 9/11 know damn well that it’s not true. In fact, they surely know that the “evidence” supporting it is flimsy-to-nonexistent. As such, calling the official story a “theory” really gives it too much dignity; it implies that there is at least some credible evidence that the story is true.
So I suggest we stop using the term “official conspiracy theory” or “OCT” and instead call it what it is: a cover story, a lie.
Adam,
Interesting analysis, but
OCT
still works
for me.
–D
Yes, that’s fine, I was just thinking out loud so as to solicit feedback; I’m not trying to dictate to the community what terminology to use when.
No, Adam, your analysis was right on the money. How can we call the official story an “official conspiracy theory”? This implies that the people who are covering this crime up only have a theory as to what happened. The perpetrators know what happened. I think we should dump OCT, “the attacks of Sept. 11” or “the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks” and anything else that implies something that we don’t believe to be true. We can’t use language that reinforces the official story, in my opinion.
I concur, these weren’t “attacks”, it was a setup. Just as I never put the word “President” in front of Sotero’s name, if that’s what his name truly is. He’s far from being one, and this too was a setup 😉
No problem, I didn’t think you we’re try to dictate. And you have a point . Craig makes some interesting points in this regard as well. Whatever the logic, I have found that using OCT against people who attack with. “conspiracy theory” is effective, which is why I still keep OCT at the ready.
Sent from my iPhone
>
My humble contribution to the language we use has to do with the constant references even among ourselves to the “collapse” of the towers or building 7 when we should most definitely say the “demolition” of the towers and building 7. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_by_3a_adam_080108_demolished_vs__colla.htm
I agree with Adam Syed’s point about calling it the OCT. I suggest we call it what it is which is most accurately described as the official cover up or OCU for short. In fact that is how I will describe it from now on myself.
Absolutely. “Collapse” might be the most common term that needs attention. It’s right up there with “attacks.”
My attitude when it comes to the language used in discussing 9/11 is more flexible, depending on who I am conversing with. I like to use the generic “events of 9/11”, rather than descriptors. The bulk of what I have to say makes it clear enough what I think happened at the different sites.
As far as “OCT”; certainly it is no “theory” to the perps who know exactly what they did. But it can be said to be theory for the general public who buy into the official narrative. So I don’t see it as cut and dry as some here.
I generally avoid the word, “attacks”, as that does carry the tacit baggage of “terrorist attacks” which is generally assumed by the mass public mind to mean a “Muslim terrorist attack.”
One thing I am still a stickler on is that the towers and No.7 did not “collapse” – they EXPLODED. Another thing is the “hijackers” — they are “the alleged hijackers” and the allegation is false.
And of course “al Qaeda”… this is a stumper for the mainstream mind. It takes quite a bit of educating to convince most of the uninitiated that “al Qaeda” is a front for western intelligence. And a sibling problem is the use of the term “rogue elements” – this has been a limited hangout from the time of the JFK event, or coup d’etat. These events we discuss were planned and implemented by the core of the system itself. And this touches on ‘general theory’ and “the Grand Conspiracy” of the international banking cabal.
\\][//
Good points. Personally, I don’t mind the expression. Debunkers use “conspiracy theory” to ridicule and discredit. “Official conspiracy theory” shows that two can play at that game.
I guess I just feel that this is a case of us trying to be too clever for our own good. The term “conspiracy theory” is not just used to ridicule and discredit, it’s also used to distort. I don’t think we should be trying to do that, especially when the subtleties of why we’re doing it will be lost on most people.
Good point Adam, I hadn’t thought of that.
But Griffin’s attempt to paint the official story with the same black brush being used on us was misguided anyway. The term “conspiracy theory” and even the word “conspiracy” has now been so utterly corrupted that it is nothing more than a slur. It retains only a vestige of its original meaning, ie, in no way does it refer to theories about conspiracies. It now means something closer to “a crazy idea that is believed only by pathetic losers who can’t face reality.” Since matrix-dwellers don’t see the govt story that way, the term had no impact.
In other words, it’s pointless to continue to act as if “conspiracy theory” still has its original meaning when, thanks to relentless hammering by the media, it now means essentially “false.”
We probably should banish the word “conspiracy” from our vocabulary entirely, as it immediately triggers alarm bells. As for describing ourselves, how about “awakened?”
Adding to my note from last night:
Since the the word “conspiracy” is mainly used as an attack against us, what we need is a good defense. I think my standard response will now be to ask the person using the word what he/she thinks it means.
In conversation with a friend shortly after Sandy Hook, I asked: don’t you think it’s weird that the parents didn’t insist on seeing their children’s bodies?” Her knee jerk response: “I’m not interested in conspiracy theories.”
Notice that I hadn’t suggested any theories, I just asked a question. If I could do this over, it might go like this:
her: I’m not interested in conspiracy theories.
me: what do you mean by “conspiracy theories?”
her: crazy ideas with no proof.
me: I just asked a question.
her: I know what you’re suggesting, some kind of government conspiracy.
me: well, isn’t it crazy to think that parents would just accept the word of a stranger that their child is dead? They would want their child’s body, wouldn’t they?
her: I haven’t heard that. It wasn’t on CNN.
me: do you think CNN always tells the truth?
her: they make mistakes of course, but they do their best.
So maybe this conversation won’t go anywhere if their mind is impenetrable, but it might make someone think, just a little.
This is a fine documentary, and suitable for any one who is ‘on the fence’ or is curious–knowing of course that s/he would have to sit through five hours. I would just advise those who are receptive that it’s loaded with info, and to take it in at their own pace. Undoubtedly, the format of this documentary makes the viewer the juror, esp. with discrediting of counter-arguments. The epilogue touches a nerve, and emphasizes the sense of injustice, for those who are still suffering and for the ongoing coverup.
I recommend also the full hour of Kevin Barrett’s interview of Massimo Mazzucco, on his radio program here: http://noliesradio.org/archives/75918
Eric,
Thank you for the tip on Kevin Barrett’s interview of Mazzucco. They cover a lot of ground in an excellent discussion. I enjoyed it very much.
\\][//
Thanks for that link, Eric. I’m sure Kevin did a great job with that interview. And I agree with you that the Mazzucco film does a very good job of dismantling the counter arguments.
yes eric, thanks for the tip on the barrett interview of mazzucco. truly excellent.
i was especially impressed with all of the 9/11 facts mazzucco cited off the top of his head. also pleasantly surprised to here him analyze and tear into the behavior of lucky larry silverstein regarding the towers and building 7.
the best part for me was mazzucco’s take that bush was not only NOT aware on 9/11 that the events were about to unfold (as i had always thought given the dopey look on bush’s face when he was told on camera in the classroom that america was under attack, while holding a children’s book upside down, see https://www.google.com/search?q=bush+book+upside+down+9/11&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=NcEAU56TEpTCyAGu-YDICg&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=719), but that bush was purposefully kept away from washington by cheney until everything was “done.”
shocking was mazzucco’s reporting of a newspaper story indicating that the top 9/11 perpetrators’ plan A was to have bush assassinated by a faux media crew (as had been the m.o. in a contemporary assassination carried out in afghanistan), and filmed for posterity–a plan that did not work out when an alert white house employee checked to see if in fact an interview had been scheduled and approved. when there was no record of approval, the “interview” was not permitted to occur. when the assassination did not go thru, the perps resorted to plan B (keeping bush flying around and away from d.c. until 6pm).
finally, this mazzucco take also made total sense: 9/11 would have happened anyway even if gore had been elected in 2000 because his vice president (joe leiberman, whom mazzucco saw as ‘even worse’ than cheney) would have been in charge of the operation and gore assassinated.
welcome to america. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO3gWIGzH3A
–d
This response is way too speculative, with the exception of one point, that many truthers accept as fact. Bush was NOT holding the book containing the goat story upside down. That may have happened at another photo op, but not in Sarasota. [Also the book’s title was not “My Pet Goat.” The book was a reading textbook, and the story, titled “The Pet Goat,” was contained therein. Truthers should pay attention to details whenever possible.
Just look at all the events Americans and the world believe that now are false. Just take Vietnam. What is it? 57,000 died for what? A lie started it. Or take an event like Waco. Why anyone still trusts their government is beyond me and maybe that is part of it. You can’t bring in a new government if people like the old one.
“You can’t bring in a new government if people like the old one.”~Fakirsmith
Have you ever considered the possibility that it is ‘government’ itself that is the core problem? I am not speaking in the “Libertarian” sense of “less government”, I am speaking in the true anarchist sense of NO GOVERNMENT.
It may seem inconceivable — but we need to think anew.
\\][//
While I like the idea of anarchy, the fact remains in this world that some people will seek power and use whatever means they have to take it. At least our government, believe it or not, has some degree of control by the citizenry. And judges, believe it or not, are often on our side.
I am in the process of watching the whole film now as I only watched the pentagon portion before. While I was disapointed by the pentagon section because it lacks disclosure of the NOC evidence I will give the rest of the film my full attention and comment about it after I have seen the whole thing.
I will say however that I am not a big fan of avoiding compelling evidence like the NOC material because it is “controversial”. I find that to be disingenuous and a bit cowardly to be honest. That is the reason I am not a fan of the consensus panel. Popularity has nothing to do with what is true. My approach to 9/11 truth is to hit them square between the eyes with the whole unvarnished truth no matter how unpleasant it may be and let them decide how they are going to handle it or evade it. Then the responsibility is theirs not mine as to how to deal with the truth.
I will keep an open mind and watch the whole presentation and see how it looks then.
Speaking of language, how do people feel about this?
At 911blogger, a user “NationalInstituteOfScientificTreason” (an account I’ve never seen there) submits the following post:
This Is It – The 9/11 Investigation We’ve Been Building Toward
All It Will Take Is a Modest Donation from a Few Thousand Believers
Visit HighriseSafetyNYC.org to donate today.
What is the High-rise Safety Initiative?
If passed by the voters on November 4, 2014, the High-rise Safety Initiative will require the New York City Department of Buildings to investigate the collapse of WTC 7 – but first, we need to get it on the ballot. Learn more.
Do you want to see an official investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 in 2015?
If your answer is “YES”, please donate today to help the High-rise Safety Initiative raise the funds needed to put this measure on the ballot. A donation of $25 or $50 is a small sacrifice to take a chance on this truly promising opportunity for a real investigation. We can’t do it without you chipping in.
“The High-rise Safety Initiative”
This is the same kind of daydreaming that leads to law suites filed in the crooked legal system in the US. It is asking ‘the authorities” – who are crooked themselves – to straighten out the kinks twisted into the situation by “authorities” on a much higher tier than those being petitioned.
“Do you want to see an official investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 in 2015?”
Frankly I have seen enough “official investigations” in my life, and I don’t care to see another. What I want to see is “the officials” take a hike and get out of my life. I want to see people turning away from and paying attention to “officials” and the rules and bullshit they push on us. I want to see a people with the sense to stop cooperating with such a fucked up system, who realize there’s nobody going change their world but themselves.
GOVERNMENT IS A RACKET
\\][//
adam,
thanks for posting this. i have no idea who the 911blogger poster is but i had mentioned the high rise safety initiative in this thread above on February 8, 2014 – 5:07 am. no one here picked up on it. i can give you the backstory as i have been involved in this from the beginning, and have been drafted onto the board of directors at nyc can. as i see it, this initiative gives us a legitimate shot at a real investigation into bldg 7 by nyc authorities. if we do in fact get an honest investigation and the truth comes out mainstream, that ultimately could lead to more investigations, and change the world. okay, i’m a dreamer, but i’m not the only one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs realistically, we’ll need $250K net to bring this referendum to the voters. so donations and helping this go viral would be most welcome.
–d
Dennis,
I certainly mean no disrespect to you. And I did recognize this initiative as something you mentioned here before.
Having said that, I stand by my comment just above your response to Adam. And having reiterated such, I will also say that I would never actively discourage you in your valiant pursuits. Yet I will further this conversation noting this: there HAS been an investigation. This conversation is part of that investigation. And all of the independent work done from the day of 9/11 forward IS the valid investigation. We validate it ourselves. Turning to “the government” for ‘validation’ is, again; giving them ‘value’, and validating their existence. It is riding that old carousel in another circle of illegitimacy, and when the music stops – there you are again, in the same illegitimate line you were standing in to board the crank-ride to nowhere.
But good luck to you in this endeavor. I certainly cannot read the future, and what you are attempting may lead to something after all.
\\][//
I’m gathering you sat on the sidelines during the civil rights era? Legislative and court decisions paved the way for more equality for all. Thank God I am no iconoclast.
Dennis,
Thanks for clarifying this, and yes, I did see your earlier long comment, but forgot the bottom part of it. I certainly believe you, and hopefully this initiative, is well meaning. But I would also echo HR’s response that “the truth movement IS the investigation.”
Also, what about the language inherent? “High-rise Safety Initiative?” The building was perfectly structurally sound and had there been no explosives in it, it would have been perfectly safe. The building didn’t “collapse” either; it imploded. I’m dreaming here also, but with more skeptical lenses than the John Lennon ones… I see a red flag that this could be a money suck. (Not saying I won’t support it and I might even consider donating.) Let’s say it gets on the ballot and it wins in November. What will the “New York Department of Buildings” do for its investigation?
I’d be willing to bet that the Department would put out a press release, saying to the effect of: “The National Institute of Standards and Technology did an exhaustive, comprehensive study on this matter and their final report was released in ’08” and so forth. If they had to write a “report,” likely, they’d write up a report in favor of the official version, citing NIST and Popular Mechanics in their footnotes and getting the endorsement of so-and-so, Ph.D, from MIT.
In fact, doesn’t the title of the initiative implicitly encourage such a conclusion?
(Continuing thinking out loud here…)
Looking at the “about” page (http://highrisesafetynyc.org/about), I see it does say re WTC7: “The cause of World Trade Center 7’s collapse has great significance for building professionals because high-rises are built to withstand the types of office fires that occurred in World Trade Center 7 on 9/11. Before that day no high-rise had ever collapsed from fires.”
And then it says:
“Although the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a report on World Trade Center 7 in 2008, many experts have disputed the conclusions of this report…”
So far so good…
“and the cause of the collapse continues to be disputed by Con Edison and building owner Larry Silverstein in an ongoing lawsuit.”
This isn’t quite right. Con Ed and several insurance companies decided to sue Larry Silverstein, claiming that the “structural failure” was due to Silverstein’s “negligence.” Both sides agreed it was “structural failure;” Con Ed and partners were simply trying to get some money out of Silverstein. Here is how a NY Daily News article summed it up:
And finally, the initiative concludes its paragraph with this (bolding mine):
“A new investigation by the City of New York will further our understanding of how and why World Trade Center 7 collapsed, leading to safer building design in the future.”
willy,
thanks for that, and the good wishes. i never interpreted your message to be one of disrespect. i understand your position and respect it.
re: “all of the independent work done from the day of 9/11 forward IS the valid investigation. We validate it ourselves.” i would argue that that’s true for those initiated into 9/11 truth.. i would not consider this initiative to be “turning to the government for ‘validation’” for me. but there is a large portion of the population who would be awakened if, for example, the nyc bldg dept held as A&E does, that Bldg 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. it is they—the public at large—i seek to reach, and hopefully bring about that revolution we both seek.
you say in your initial post on this topic, “I want to see people turning away from and paying attention to “officials” and the rules and bullshit they push on us. I want to see a people with the sense to stop cooperating with such a fucked up system, who realize there’s nobody going change their world but themselves.” yeah, i want to see that too, ala Gandhi, but i don’t see it coming.
–d
adam,
i totally disagree that “the truth movement IS the investigation.” within the 9/11 truth community, perhaps, but face facts. NIST did the official investigation, and nist’s word is the official word. to have a shot at reversing the ongoing ramifications of 9/11, the official story needs to change, in my view. imagine if the nyc dept of bldgs accomplishes that.
re: the language inherent in “High-rise Safety Initiative?” when we were working out the details of the petition, we relied on the advice of expert nyc election lawyers who counseled as to the type of language and approach that would/would not fly with nyc voters, referees, judges, etc. we are trusting their expert opinion.
re: “this could be a money suck.” yeah, i guess it could turn out that way, but i feel it’s worth a shot.
re: “What will the “New York Department of Buildings” do for its investigation?” their mandate would be to independently investigate and determine why building 7 came down.
re: “I’d be willing to bet that the Department would put out a press release, saying to the effect of: “The National Institute of Standards and Technology did an exhaustive, comprehensive study on this matter and their final report was released in ’08″ and so forth. If they had to write a “report,” likely, they’d write up a report in favor of the official version, citing NIST and Popular Mechanics in their footnotes and getting the endorsement of so-and-so, Ph.D, from MIT.” that would not be an investigation, in my view. from the petition itself, item 4:
4. Investigatory Responsibilities. Provided that the Department’s responsibilities under the Act shall encompass only those
matters, activities, or inquiries involving the City, and shall not encompass any matters, activities, or inquiries involving state,
national, or international entities or agencies, the Department shall conduct an Investigation into the cause or causes of each Collapse.
re: “In fact, doesn’t the title of the initiative implicitly encourage such a conclusion?” i don’t see it that way. to me the language mandates an objective inquiry.
re: “and the cause of the collapse continues to be disputed by Con Edison and building owner Larry Silverstein in an ongoing lawsuit….This isn’t quite right.” i see your point, but it’s not wrong either. i did a story on the con ed case for AE (gregg roberts was the editor and contributed as well), focusing on the dissent who wanted to know what did cause the collapse of building 7. see http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/832-divided-federal-appeals-court-panel-rules-negligence-did-not-cause-building-7s-collapse-dissenting-judge-asks-what-did.html
re your objection to: “A new investigation by the City of New York will further our understanding of how and why World Trade Center 7 collapsed, leading to safer building design in the future.” again, this language is in line with the election lawyers’ opinion about how this issue could be best presented in a way that can succeed at every stage of the process. we are relying on their expert opinion.
–d
Adam mentioned above that he asked one of his music students about how the school teaches 9/11. It reminds me of one of my favourite expressions: “Never let school interfere with your education.”
“Never let school interfere with your education.”
Yea Peter, to some it sounds like just a quip – but it’s great advice.
Being an artist, I sat and drew pictures through almost all my classes. I’d get caught and told “what” sometimes. But nothing would dissuade me from what came natural.
\\][//
Dennis, HR1, and Adam S,
My thoughts on the discussion about the High Rise Safety Initiative may ruffle some feathers but here goes anyway. Before I go on however I do want to say that I may in fact be proven wrong about my conclusions regarding government agencies, in this case the NY department of buildings. In fact I hope to be proven stunningly wrong and have my faith renewed in the “good guys” inside the system. I am also reluctant to discourage any effort towards a positive outcome because I realise I may be wrong about what I am about to say.
All that said I have to agree with HR1 and Adam Syed about such an initiative being an almost certain failure or white wash. I also particularly agree with HR1 that looking to the Government for legitimacy is like looking to a whore for chastity. The government including the city of NY government is corrupt from top to bottom in my opinion. While I am sure that most of the people involved in that government are trying hard to do the right thing they are in fact controlled from above and compartmentalized. Because of that reality they are in effect corrupt from top to bottom. I believe that even if such an initiative passed (Which I highly doubt) those in charge of the NY department of buildings would derail any legitimate investigation. While they themselves may not be totally corrupt evil bastards they would certainly be controlled from above their own agency by the mayor or whoever and forced to white wash the whole thing.
These are the same issues I had with the NYC CAN initiative which was scuttled by these corrupt forces I describe above before it even had a chance to be scuttled through direct intervention of corrupt entities. I do see this initiative as another “money suck” which is why I cannot donate to it myself. Again I really hope I am proven so wrong and made to look like a chump about all of this. I will gladly eat a full plate of crow if that happens.
To me this initiative along with several other efforts the 9/11 truth movement suffer from the same problem HR1 so accurately described above. They turn to government for legitimacy when the truth is the government is by far the most illigitimate entity embroiled in the 0/11 issue. In fact the government is the prime suspect in the crime itself. While only a few may have been directly involved in perpetraiting the crime itself the government as a whole united front has definitely been involved in covering up the crime and still does so today.
adam r,
thanks for your input. i understand your position, but as i see it, we go forward with the effort and shine a spotlight on every aspect. if it turns out to be as you say, i can say to the world, “look at this!” and i can also say to myself “i gave it a shot and now I’m done.” and then go tango, if that’s how it strikes me at that point.
re: “These are the same issues I had with the NYC CAN initiative which was scuttled by these corrupt forces I describe above before it even had a chance to be scuttled through direct intervention of corrupt entities.” from my insider view, i see this as wholly inaccurate. from a legal standpoint, the original petition was fatally flawed from the outset. it was a fait accompli when i arrived on the scene. we learned on the eve of litigation that that was the case from an election law expert who said, “i can’t win this for you, and it’s gong to cost you $20,000 for me to represent you and lose.” so i went into court instead, pro bono, and said what i said, and saved us some bucks for this latest effort. drg picked up on the “building what?” statement by judge leaner that i elicited impromptu and it turned into a movement of sorts. there’s more that flowed from this but i won’t bore you with that. for me the bottom line is this: do what you are called to do, and donate (time, energy, money, keystrokes, whatever) where you feel it is right to do so. and i will do the same. and let’s wish each other the best in the process.
best,
–d
Dennis,
I hear you my friend and I do not want to discourage you from the effort. I know my stance is discouraging but know that my negativity is directed at government and not at you. In my view anyone who tries in whatever way to get justice for 9/11 is a hero regardless of my agreement or disagreement with their approach. I also feel the same about the film we are discussing in this thread by the way. While I do not like the way the film handles the pentagon evidence I still have a high regard for the filmaker and for the massive effort. I do think the film will do some good and I am glad it was made. I wish you the best on the new initiative and hope with all my might that I am proven wrong about it’s chances.
thanks adam r. i am not discouraged, despite the consensus here.
willy, thanks for the link to that story on the HRSI.
senor el once,
thanks for your input. mainly what i was referring to is the personal 9/11 path i continued on following that court appearance. not much inside detail to divulge.
–d
Dear Mr. Dennis,
I’m sorry that I must caste my chits with the jaded and their view on “The High-Rise Safety Initiative.” The initiative is another way to scope-limit the needed investigations.
I see it as another money-suck that will distract with minutia of “building codes” instead of “tenant selection” [CIA, FBI, SEC] whose enemies alone — foreign and domestic, external and internal — would be crafty enough to literally nuke whatever high-rise safety conclusions are proposed and implemented.
You wrote:
Actually, I’d would be very interested in the “more that flowed from this.” Take your time; lots of detail. Such insider details don’t get out to the troops in far-flung stations. It would be very informative, I think.
//
I have no intent to discourage Dennis in his campaign, and I am sure I couldn’t dissuade him if I tried.But I read by deconstruction, certain assumptions that seem to drive these sorts of things. Assumptions that reveal no appreciation of the monstrous powers behind the events of 9/11 – the gargantuan vile and psychotic powers driving the world today.
There is an unrevealed catch 22 to the situation we are faced with. That is that 9/11 opened the floodgates of unrestrained power to the agenda of the maximum security state and it’s warmongering military industrial conquest. The catch is that a revelation of the truth of their perpetration of 9/11 is effectively restrained by the exponential growth of the sociopolitical power of said perpetrators. And why this is a dilemma is that to reveal the truth, one must first weaken that political power. So to attempt to use the truth of 9/11 as the tool to weaken that power is mere gesture, crying to the wind, commanding the tide to halt in its cycles.
To be frank, and speaking from the lessons of history, it is clear; one does not plead for redress from a tyranny. As Mr Ruff noted in his commentary, this so-called “government” is a hierarchical {top down} system, what happens on the lower rungs that we are able to barely reach is dictated from the top.
This approach for redress also discounts the utter enchantment that the mass of the people are under. This is perhaps the most serious problem, breaking the spell of this necromancy.
I will also say, that ‘events on the ground’ are swelling and will catch up with everything as a game changer in toto in the not too distant future. There is a world wide economic “collapse” in the wings – I use quotes here because it is a reordering planned and waiting in the wings. The whole agenda has been and remains, a “new world order” predicated on a neo-feudal template. It is in a far advanced stage at this point in time. It isn’t even a real secret – but hidden in plain sight.
What to DO about this?
Recognize and admit the momentum this force has. Don’t stand in the middle of the tracks waving “9/11 Truth” signs and chanting ‘hairy krismass’ as this massive train barrels down on you.
How can one prepare for the new Dark Ages? I seriously don’t know, but many a generation has had to learn; “you can’t stand in the way of progress” – and believe it or not this is what we “progress” towards.
My advice is to do the best you can with the time you have left here. Remember, nobody lives forever. Humans have gone on through all manner of crisis since they became human.
All things must pass. This too shall pass. And whatever horrorshow is set to be staged… well that will pass also.
~Dr Doom’n’Gloom [Lol]
\\][//
I find myself in agreement with Dr Doom’n’Gloom. I have prepped the best I can for the hard times to come (which are already here in a big way) and I guess I am sort of in the same mindset as HR1. Let the chips fall where they may is my attitude. If you are not ready for massive upheaval I recommend you do the best you can in the very short time you have left and get ready.
I do see a real chance for humanity to make some huge and meaningful changes to the way things work. An awakening like no other is happening right now and it is keeping pace with the accelerated tyranny. Yin and Yang are happening simultaneously. The more tyranny they impose on us the more people join the resistance. The NWO is creating their own counter force the way I see it.
Liberty or death!
9/11 truth will set us free!
Here is something I look forward to. And I highly recommend that all tune into this series, as it is essential for us to realize that we are going to have to forego “government” if the human race is going to survive as Human Beings.
To avoid a new dark age of reverting back to the automatons that we evolved out of aka the Julian Jaynes’ revelation in THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND. Yes, “Transhumanism” as promoted by the likes of Kurzweil would be exactly that, a return to the bicameral mind, and “hearing” the voices of gods in a Brave New World.
http://www.corbettreport.com/the-well-read-anarchist-001-introduction/
\\][//
Hello everyone,
I am trying an experiment with the comments on Truth and Shadows. Moderation has been removed so comments will appear immediately. The very small number of individuals whose behavior has resulted in their banning will still be blocked. Comments that mention one of these names or that have more than three links will go into moderation and will have to be approved. The maximum number of links without moderation is due to the fact that spam comments often have many links. If it becomes clear that the number allowed should be increased (without the risk of opening the door to spam) then I’ll do that. I look forward to feedback on how this works.
Sounds good! Like I said to you in an email, the only danger is that if you’re away from your computer for many hours, you might return to find a lengthy flame war, or related disruption. But that probably won’t happen often, and yes, this should speed up the flow of the discussion.
Hi Craig,
I am just commenting to see how the comment shows up — how quickly it does.
I think this is a good idea, we’ll see how it works out.
\\][//
Hey! I didn’t say you could say that! Oh, yeah…
Guess we’ll have to watch our “Ps” and “Qs” more closely now – moderation saved me from a lot of typos – getting time to ask you to edit things quite a few times.
What was that Alex said? “Come get one in the yarbles…if ya got any yarbles” … Lol
\\][//
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/millions-business-people-risk-dying-collapsing-buildings.html
Washington’s blog is giving a nod to the initiative that Dennis is working on.
Some of the comments are…well, you know how people are…Lol
\\][//
Just a note on the paradigm that 9/11 occurred in; the past as prologue:
“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”~ Quigley [TRAGEDY AND HOPE]
And that is exactly what we have today.
We have a system of “neo-feudalism” in which all of us and our national governments are enslaved to debt.
\\][//
As McLuhan pointed out, the big things need not be hidden, but are in plain sight, the public’s incredulity is what keeps it from their notice. The agenda is verily shouted from the rooftops in historical literature. The modus operandi is described in great detail. In fact that which is supposedly hidden by the ‘Secret Societies’ is as open a secret as all else. The MO of the cult of intelligence for the state is so fully understood that ‘circumstantial’ charges are simple to make. This is standard racket science, gum shoe street smarts.
But it is all invisible from INSIDE the paradigm, for it is a type of box. A box constructed in the mind by programming and conditioning. It is a trance, an enchantment, as powerful as any fairytale story about wizards and dragons.
In fact the Paradigm itself is a carefully designed myth, using all the emotional cues of any mythos. And even THIS is part of its power, for those who hear the real story think it sounds too much like a fairytale to be true—this is their double-bind.
It is reasonable and so, that there has never been a person who has been successfully brainwashed who believed they were brainwashed. It lies within the definition of the word itself. That the vast majority are immersed in the myth and unaware that the pretense is proven by the fact that the system of appearances is maintained.
This is the crux of the problem that the crux of the matter reveals.
As utterly horrific as the matter itself is, the problem it has manifest is even more so,
the majority of the people are automatons responding to media and social cues and have no control over their destiny.
It is that horror envisioned by the film, THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS.
\\][//
Invasion of the Body Snatchers…I always loved that movie. I’m forgetting the ending. Didn’t the good guys (Kevin McCarthty’s character) win? Or was there some pod ambiguity?
There was some “pod ambiguity” as far as my take on it. He warned the cops in that station, and the last scene is an officer coming in and saying there was an accident on the FWY and the truck involved had the weirdest pod like things in it. It left it to your imagination whether they had the ability to deal with it.
My analogy has a less ambiguous setting as far as my reading goes – the pod people already have taken over Earth.
I saw that movie as a triple matinee when I was about 12-13. A friend and I rode our bikes to Ontario from Montclair to the theater. It was getting dark by the time we got out. We had to ride past the cemetery on the way home, it was dark by then…we were so creeped out by that movie that Albert freaked out screaming and crashed his bike going over the curb.
I kept going…Lol
Yea it is a sci-fi classic.
\\][//
Kevin McCarthy also had a cameo in the 1978 remake starring Donald Sutherland and Leonard Nimoy.
Yes I recall that. I liked that movie pretty much. It just didn’t have the spook factor of the original.
They have made a couple other remakes as well. I didn’t like those so much. The updating got to be a bit corny in that ‘scientific’ way. Wasn’t the guy that plays the new James Bond in one? I don’t know if it actually had that title, but the synopsis was close.
\\][//
That one was called The Invasion. Apocalytic movies are all the rage over the past decade or so. Just like buildings exploding and being hit by aircraft were big in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Hmmm.
Thanks Craig,
You jogged my memory, now I remember.
And Apocalytic movies keep coming at us…the Zombie one with Brad Pitt is one I have made a point to miss; jejune papsqattle that.
\\][//
The movie that spooked me out the most as a kid was ‘IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE’
I was pretty young, don’t remember exactly. But shortly after seeing it, my grandparents came to California for a visit. They had my room while there, and I was sleeping on the couch in the den. I woke up in the middle of the night and looked up and saw that glowing eye staring down at me. My scream woke everyone in the house up.
The ‘eye’ turned out to be the glowing dial on a clock perched up high on a shelf…Lol
I’m sure if I saw the movie today it would be pretty clunky. I just watched Rocket Ship XM, one of my favorite films when I was young. The opening and flight to the red planet was kind of silly by today’s standards. But the parts on Mars were pretty neat still. The Theremin score is still one of my favorites. The anti-war message was also rather unique for the period.
\\][//
For a short presentation this one by Stormcloudsgathering is pretty good, and hits some essential points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5PY_qM28rnA#t=57
\\][//
“When people need to believe something, the facts matter very little. Reality can be twisted and bent into any shape needed, information discarded, contradictions ignored. Never underestimate peoples willingness to delude themselves.”
A.Wright,
You are a prime example of that statement, your ability to ignore contradictions and discard information is legendary. How a person at this point in history, with access to such massive evidence proving 9/11 was a false flag operation, can still delude themselves into believing the official cover up (OCU) is a testament to the bottomless ability people have to delude themselves. You yourself prove the truth of your quote more than anyone I know.
@Adam Ruff
You obviously do underestimate peoples willingness to delude themselves, unless you don’t include yourself in the term ‘people’. Are members of the 911 Truth Movement not ‘people’? You shouldn’t according to this video ever ‘underestimate peoples willingness to delude themselves’ – even in yourself, maybe especially in yourself. Is your belief in 911 truth important to you? How important? Does it do you think affect your objective judgement of evidence, of people? Have you invested a lot of time and effort and energy in it? It’s a ‘Movement’. To belong to ‘the movement’ you are required to believe certain things. It’s supposed to be about finding the truth, no matter where it leads, but there are certain places it is not allowed to lead. To believe those things would mean not being in ‘the movement’ anymore. If ‘truthers’ are like jury members judging evidence, they are the jury members sitting there wearing ‘The guy is guilty’ badges on their lapels.
As for what you say about me , I asked you before to show where I had presented inaccurate criticisms or statements , about Barrie Zwicker or CIT for example , but it seems just blanket statements and ad hominem attacks are good enough for you.
Mr Wright, it is not an “ad hominen attack” to say, for example, that this latest tirade is one of the most disingenuous statements I have read on these pages. It is the essence of a “blanket statement” – one that is totally without foundation.
You have been asked on numerous occasions to present just ONE single witness to the Pentagon event that you can hold up as an example of unimpeachable proof of an airliner strike on that building. Your MO when pressed for specifics has always been to disappear into the ether like the spook you appear to be.
Now, I have one question for you, and I want you to answer it in detail:
What was the mechanism that brought down the twin towers at WTC? Explain that to me.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
As you are aware there is a long list of eyewitnesses who say the plane hit the Pentagon -illustrated by the fact that you are asking me to choose one from that long list- and having looked at all the evidence , I have no reasonable doubt whatsoever that they are correct. There is actually a long list of these witnesses on CIT’s website ,witnesses whose evidence they ignore in reaching their conclusion that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. I would have thought anyone investigating what happened at the Pentagon would have to assess the evidence of all the eyewitnesses who were there before reaching a conclusion about what happened. After all eyewitness evidence is evidence, that can be presented in a court of law. If you think only a small part of the evidence should be assessed before reaching a conclusion about an event, and the rest ignored, well then go ahead, but don’t ask me to find the conclusions of that investigation in any way credible, or even logical. No more that I would find the verdict in a trial to be credible if the jury reached their verdict after only the prosecution case was presented to them. I find it strange to see an academic like Paul Zarembka above describe that investigation as ‘scientific’ when that is surely just about the last description that could be applied to it.
Wright,
As per the witnesses at the Pentagon, you have again gone into your typical song and dance. You try to pretend that we have not addressed each and every witness mentioned in public reports, assessed each one. Not simply reporting what they allegedly said but putting that testimony to the test of it’s possible validity given the position, view, and circumstance of the witness concerned.
You claim you “have no reasonable doubt” — “having looked at the best evidence”, yet cannot name a single witness to discuss their testimony.
You speak of a case put before a jury, when you know damned well the courts have systematically blunted any real access to them through obvious crony manipulations.
In essence like all of your commentary it is just the general “bla bla bla” that you always do.
Now I asked you what the mechanism was that brought down the towers. It is a straight forward simple question. Since you have been involved in this case for all these years, surely you have an answer.
WHAT CAUSED THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE TRADE CENTER TOWERS?
\\][//
Mr Wright,
Perhaps you can explain your borrowing of that quote, and put it into context from your perspective.
Having some experience with your perspective, I am pretty sure Mr Ruff’s comment will be affirmed.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
“When people need to believe something, the facts matter very little. Reality can be twisted and bent into any shape needed, information discarded, contradictions ignored. Never underestimate peoples willingness to delude themselves.”
The person writing that doesn’t seem to realise he is making a general statement that applies to people in general – people like himself for example, or people in the 911 truth movement. Iroically he then even in this short video illustrates the point himself by presenting examples of twisting and discarding information – how strange that the media reported that WTC7 had collapsed before it had collapsed , showing clips from CNN and the BBC. That is really strange and suspicious. Don’t tell the viewer that the collapse of the building was being predicted by the fire dept. for hours beforehand and they halted rescue work to wait for the collapse. They don’t need to know that. Just give them part of the information and leave out the other part. You wouldn’t want to ‘muddy the waters’ by giving people all the information they need to reach a conclusion. And Willie Rodrigues , talking about explosions that on the day he didn’t describe as explosions. And showing video of the WTC towers not collapsing at ‘free fall speed’ and saying they collapsed at free fall speed. etc. etc.
A Wright,
I asked you a very specific question, I did not ask for your commentary on the video.
I would gladly remark on the way you have twisted the story in your current remarks, but only after you have addressed the question put to you. This scatter-gun approach of laying multiple dubious controversies on the table is a technique that might work for you elsewhere. Not here. You have avoided answering my questions for too long.
No more playing cat and mouse Wright, answer my question; what were the mechanisms that brought down the towers, and now that you want to discuss WTC7, include that in your answer.
\\][//
On second thought; I did ask for your opinion. So be it. However, that request was supplemented with a question that I will only ask one more time.
If I don’t get an answer from you Wright. I will have to resort to some critical commentary concerning your rhetorical methodology, as it should be pointed out, it is not just a few confusing months since the events of 9/11, but over a dozen years have passed. In that time much has been revealed. And you Mr Wright are still playing your same old standard stir and stall games.
\\][//
Mr Wright,
I have another comment awaiting moderation because of the number of links in it.
That comment will appear at the bottom rather than in this narrower space…
\\][//
As a practical approximation, the towers DID fall at free-fall speed. Hundred story structures falling through themselves in a matter of seconds is incredible. To quibble about a few seconds beyond free-fall speed is disingenuous. Just as spurious as calling explosions a “collapse”.
Mr Wright is misinformed or lying; Rodriguez’s story has remained consistent.
The firemen halted what “rescue work” at WTC7? The building was evacuated hours before it was demolished. According to all standard historical precedent, “predicting” the collapse of a steel frame high-rise ‘because it was on fire’ is balderdash. According to the official narrative; 9/11 was the first time that any such thing had ever happened.
The facts now reveal that it didn’t happen then either. All three buildings were demolished by explosives. And THAT can be said beyond the slightest doubt whatsoever.
\\][//
Quote Willie Rodriguez interviewed on 9/11
“I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin. ”
The firefighters halted rescue work at the WTC site and pulled everyone back from the area of WTC7 to wait for it to collapse because they were pretty sure for hours beforehand that it was going to collapse. That was why the building was evacuated in the first place. They were originally going to try and tackle the fires in the building but the decision was made not to due to the dangerous condition of the building, the fact that it was empty and because hundreds of firefighters had already died.
As for the Rodriguez story;
That was an “interview” with the press, what he told the investigators was worded differently, he used the term “explosions”.
I give links to the notes of those investigators in my post of, FEBRUARY 16, 2014 – 11:23 AM
I know the official story perfectly well Wright, you don’t have to repeat it for me.
The fact is that building 7 did not “collapse”, it was demolished by explosive demolition. Obviously if it was taken down by controlled demolition, it was wired for such beforehand. There are numerous independent studies that show the depth of fraud that NIST went to, to cover up the fact that it was demolished on purpose.
The article at this link is a good one:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Brookman-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf
Now, this is the last time I am going to ask you to explain the mechanism by which those three skyscrapers were destroyed.
And the question remains A Wright, what are you doing here? Why are you still attempting to defend the indefensible official narrative?
I have pointed out that the assertions you made as to Willy Rodriguez are proven false, as long as five years ago {the investigator’s notes were published}. So repeating such defamation at this late date is tantamount to lying.
Most of us here have come to the conclusion that you are a government stooge, whether official and paid for such or not is of no matter. It is as obvious as every spurious argument you make. This being the case, I have nothing more to say to you beyond what has already been said. I am fed up with dealing with shills, going on thirteen years now.
\\][//
Forensic Biblioteque
Modus operandi, Motive, Means, Opportunity, Cui Bono
…
Using these tools we know “beyond a reasonable doubt” that 9/11 was a systemic black operation. As such it is not so much “the individuals who actually planted the…” explosives, as the powers that planned and benefit from the operation.
Domestically we could say “the military industrial complex”, but the larger picture would consider the architecture of modern political power, and therefore would point to the top of that pyramid, the international banking cabal and it’s so-called “new world order”.
You can look to the PNAC paper on building a new “defense” for the 21st century [the one that calls for a new Pearl Harbor] as a “bid”, or a business proposal made to this high cabal. It is only through the approval of this cabal that anything is given the go-ahead.
So, your main suspects are the authors of the PNAC paper, with the added knowledge of where the power of authorization is proximated.
\\][//
The following URL leads to a fascinating graphic of the connections of groups and individuals involved in the PNAC “New Pearl Harbor Project” [my title]:
http://www.septemberclues.info/PNAC_fearmongerers.pdf
\\][//
“Further, the process of transformation,even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic & catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
—Page 51 of Rebuilding America’s Defenses; September 2000
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I thought it would be good for the convenience of the totally uninitiated who might be reading here to give that quote from the original PNAC document.
\\][//
>..”how strange that the media reported that WTC7 had collapsed before it had collapsed”~Wright
It is not strange that the media would report a building falling before it actually did? That is what you are saying Wright? No problem for you that it was a lie…hmmm.
And yes, the stories of the firemen warning of the imminent demise of building 7 is so, which is very suspicious in itself, given that never in the history of steel framed highrise buildings had one ever collapsed due to fire. So any “prediction” of an anticipated “collapse” must have been due to the inside knowledge of the building being wired to blow up.
. . . . .
Your controversy on what terms Rodriquez “used that day” is just more of your rhetorical twaddle. Rodriguez is not the core issue, the core issue is whether there were explosions in the towers, and specifically whether there were explosions prior to plane impacts. So Willie Rodriguez cannot be considered in isolation, but as one integer in the equation. Whether he mentioned explosions “that day” or not is not an essential concern, as explosions clearly occurred as hundreds of testimonies concur to. However, your claim that he did not give that testimony from the beginning is false:
“Rodriguez said on September 11, 2001 he reported late to work which was unusual for him. He said he was in the B1 sublevel ABM office speaking to Anthony Saltamachia when the plane struck the North Tower (WTC 1). He immediately thought the explosion was caused by a generator. Shortly after the first explosion a second explosion rocked the building and caused the office’s false ceiling to collapse. Following these explosions Felipe David, who was severely burned, ran into the office. Rodriguez said there was a third explosion and he believed then the explosions were caused by an earthquake.”
These are two separate sets of notes by two separate investigators:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/Rodriguez.pdf
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/Rodriguez-2.pdf
. . . . . . . .
Other explosive testimony:
http://www.911truth.org/explosive-testimony-revelations-twin-towers-in-911-oral-histories/
http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html
. . . . . . . .
Seismographic evidence backs up explosions prior to impact as well.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf
\\][//
Simply refuse to respond to A.Wright until he/she/it responds to your question in a meaningfull way.
Well Adam,
You don’t have to respond directly to Wright. We can converse among ourselves and achieve that which is most important; which is to not allow spurious arguments to go unanswered or unquestioned.
Take for example the assertion made that the “firemen knew that building 7 would collapse hours beforehand”. It is an issue with a certain amount of subtlety and ambiguity. Therefore one must know both the “official” narrative, and the counter argument.
Graeme MacQueen addresses a monograph by Ryan Mackey, who argues, using the oral histories of the New York Fire Department, that the collapse was natural and the warnings rational and based on direct perception. [January 2008]
“(1) In the FDNY oral histories, how many FDNY members report hearing warnings of
Seven’s collapse?
(2) What was the degree of certainty in these warnings? If we create a binary system,
how many firefighters can we classify as hearing that that the building might come down
and how many can we classify as hearing that it would come down?
(3) To the extent that we can determine times from the testimonies, how long before the
actual collapse were the warnings received?
(4) Who ascertained that the building was headed for possible or certain collapse—the
FDNY members reporting the warnings or other parties such as their official superiors?
(5) How many FDNY members gave causes of the expected collapse and what causes did
they identify?”
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf
\\][//
HR1,
A point well made and I agree that false information needs to be countered. I think that counter only needs to be made once though and from then on simply forward links to the counter arguments so as to not waste our time going over the same material. I believe that is the goal of Official Cover Up (OCU) loyalists such as A.Wright is to waste our time and drag us into arguments that have been long settled. Arguments made by A.Wright such as the witness pool at the pentagon have been exhaustively addressed by CIT and others and show his arguments to be as bogus as a three dollar bill. My concern is that we not fall into the trap of repeating ourselves ad-nauseam about subjects that are settled such as the pentagon witnesses. I believe the goals today of the cognitive infiltrators or Sunsteinians, if you prefer, is to keep us occupied with endless repetition of settled topics so that we are not concentrating on what really matters which is exposing the truth about 9/11 and developing strategies to bring down the forces that did it. That is what I am most interested in right now is developing effective methods to bring these villains down and stop them in their future plans. I could not care less about OCU loyalists such as A.Wright. I don’t care what he/she/it thinks or says I only care about defeating his masters.
In that effort to defeat the villains who did 9/11 and other false flags along with countless other heinous crimes I intend to offer effective opposition beyond simple words and outrage.
By way of background I started my working life as a computer programmer and although I did not carry on with it as a career and never became a master at it I do know how to create code that works. Add to that my lifelong interest in codes, ciphers, and secret communications and you may see where I am going.
I am developing a method of communication which the common man can use to thwart the illegal mass snooping the villains are using to maintain control. I plan to release this program in the very near future either for free or at very low cost so that we can all reclaim our privacy at least where electronic communications are concerned. This is my way of bringing down these villains and giving them a giant middle finger. I am not going to go into how this program works here but suffice it to say that number crunching super computers are not going to be effective at cracking it and so with one fell swoop I am going to give us all back our privacy as intended by the Constitution.
Here below is an example of this code which the NSA or whoever wants to try to can attempt to crack. Good luck. Once it is finished I will send the encoding/decoding program to some of you and you can decode this message. The beautiful part of this program is that it allows each individual who has it to create his/her own unique code or codes so that even if this one is broken it will not compromise any others. Even I myself will not be able to crack other codes created by the users of this program unless they provide me with their unique decoder. Enjoy.
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
I had to insert some space breaks in the code so you could see the whole coded message so here is the complete message.
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
Adam,
ityay ookslay eyeclay arshunmay ootay eemay ! ! !
But then, I’m not Venusian…
I’ll be curious to see how this works.
\\][//
@Adam Ruff
I hope the NSA don’t intercept the encoding/decoding program.
Adam,
I will be very interested to see how this turns out. Good luck!
I read this article by Graham MacQueen years ago and his conclusions was basically this
“As will be clear by now, my research refutes the claim that the FDNY witnesses
as a body perceived with their own eyes that Seven was severely damaged and on that basis concluded that it was at risk of total collapse. My research shows that the great majority of witnesses accepted that Seven was going to collapse because they were told that it was going to collapse.”
There are a large number of firefighters and there is a smaller number of firechiefs and commanders who command them. The firechiefs and senior officers are the people who assess situations and make the judgements and decisions about what course of action to take and this is passed on to the larger number of people they command. On 911 the firechiefs at the scene looked at WTC7 and judged that it was structurally unsound and might possibly collapse and they decided not to fight the fires and create a collapse cordon around the building. This information was then passed to the large numbers of firefighters on the site.
The logic of Graham MacQueen’s arguement is that the validity of the judgement of firechiefs that the building was likely to collapse is affected by the fact that it was communicated to the people under their command. This would mean that if they told an even larger number of people , if they went on TV and told millions of people that they thought WTC7 would collapse, that it would undermine their assessment of the building even more because there would now be an even greater majority of people who were told it was going to collapse rather then made that judgement themselves. The best thing the firechiefs could have done ,according to that logic, was not tell anyone they thought WTC7 was going to collapse.
Ah the official cover-up (OCU) loyalist said something? Yes he/she/it did say something! I think it was something to the effect of WTC 7 came down due to fire!
Sad and pathetic is all I have to say, sad and pathetic.
Hey Mr Ruff,
Would you please contact me via email? I want to ask you some tech questions about posting video to YouTube.
Thanks, Willy
As usual Wright,
You cherry pick a certain portion of what is written and analyse that in isolation of all the other points made.
The point was made as well that we don’t know whether it was actually any of these firechief’s independent judgement, because as you surely read in that article there was a deep question to do with someone above these chiefs who set the idea in motion.
Now, that all must be aligned with the further findings afterwards. It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that NIST did a fraudulent report on Building 7. And I have posted links to exactly what the issues are to do with that.
It is an accumulative argument Wright. All of the information must be laid out and assessed in conjunction with the rest of it. The question of whether there was outside interference from above leans heavily to the positive when all the integers are put in perspective.
And finally, it must be remembered that never in the history of steel framed highrise structures has there ever been one to collapse due to fire. Never before nor since 9/11, which argues strongly that it didn’t happen on 9/11 either.
Now, the towers Wright. As I would anticipate all we will get from you is some rendition of the official narrative on that as well. So you may as well just skip it, because we all know that is pure bullshit. And I suspect that includes yourself as well.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
The part I ‘cherry picked’ was the part Graham MacQueen cherry picked himself and regarded as significant enough to put as his main point in his summary at the top of his article.
” Abstract
On September 11, 2001 there were numerous advance warnings of World Trade
Center 7’s collapse, and many people have argued that these warnings are evidence that the building was subjected to controlled demolition. But other researchers feel the
warnings are compatible with the hypothesis of natural collapse from damage that the
building sustained throughout the day. In this article I examine the arguments of one
researcher, Ryan Mackey, who argues, using the oral histories of the New York Fire
Department, that the collapse was natural and the warnings rational and based on direct perception. Although I agree with Mackey that the damage to Seven was serious and must be acknowledged as such, I argue that a close reading of the FDNY oral histories does not support his claims and does not remove the cloud of suspicion that hangs over the collapse warnings. The majority of FDNY members did not rationally conclude, on the basis of direct perception of damage to the building, that it was in danger of collapse;they accepted that it would collapse on the basis of what they were told.”
“Although I agree with Mackey that the damage to Seven was serious and must be acknowledged as such, I argue that a close reading of the FDNY oral histories does not support his claims and does not remove the cloud of suspicion that hangs over the collapse warnings. The majority of FDNY members did not rationally conclude, on the basis of direct perception of damage to the building, that it was in danger of collapse;they accepted that it would collapse on the basis of what they were told.”
~Graham MacQueen
. . . . .
This is the operative sentence that you ignore Wright:
“I argue that a close reading of the FDNY oral histories does not support his claims and does not remove the cloud of suspicion that hangs over the collapse warnings.”
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
Quote “This is the operative sentence that you ignore Wright:
“I argue that a close reading of the FDNY oral histories does not support his claims and does not remove the cloud of suspicion that hangs over the collapse warnings.”
All Graham MacQueen is saying in that sentence is that he argues something in this article. He then provides in the next sentence an actual specific argument, and putting it there at the head of the article, the only actual specific argument he makes there, shows how important he thinks it is.
It’s not an argument that makes much logical sense and I find that surprising for someone who is an academic.
Furthermore Wright,
As I have explained before, this issue is superseded and embellished by the further developments in this case. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the NIST report on WTC7 is a scientific fraud, just as the other WTC reports they issued.
You are fighting a loosing uphill battle here Mr Wright, the burden is beyond your capacity, as you are defending an indefensible narrative.
You may, and likely will continue to spew your disinformation, but you should understand that you are getting nowhere with your bullshit here. You may as well inform your superiors that this is a futile operation and that you should throw in the towel.
\\][//
Now, let us just look at this building 7 event from a very simple and obvious perspective. The videos of it’s “collapse,” if fell straight down through itself and had all of the tell tale signs of controlled explosive demolition.
The so called dangerous damage the building incurred was in the back, the area facing the WTC towers. If that damage was what brought the building down it would have fallen back in that direction, not straight down through the structure. And anyone who doesn’t get that simply does not WANT to get it.
\\][//
“arguement” is spelled ‘argument’ in both British and American English Mr Wright.
\\][//
The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist’s mind, but to lay his techniques and dissembling bare to a candid world.~ww
\\][//
Craig McKee stated in the article: “With The New Pearl Harbor, he says he wishes to provide a resource that media can go to once they become willing to deal with the subject. He believes this will happen once a demand is created for the information (he is convinced that media are interested first in what will bring them an audience – I’m inclined to think that this subject will not be given fair treatment in the media anytime soon).”
I agree completely that the media (mainstream) will never give this subject fair treatment. Why? Because they are complicit. Most of us here would agree on that, but the question then becomes “to what degree?”
This is where I’ll probably get flamed here because I’ve recently embraced the no-planes at the twin towers theory which I eschewed for 10 years of being a 9/11 researcher. I’d looked at all of the various theories and always felt like any of them could be true, but it didn’t matter that much because the important thing was that the official story offered no proof and the event was clearly an inside job.
But the reason I now believe the no-planes theory matters above all others is because it implicates the media to a far greater extent than I had ever imagined. And that realization then leads one down the road to understanding how the myriad of false-flags that have occurred since 9/11 (and probably before) were so easily accomplished. Look at Sandy Hoax and the Boston Marathon smoke bomb for recent examples of extremely sloppy events with a myriad of holes not to mention a complete lack of evidence. The perpetrators of these incidents know full well that the media will do the propaganda work required, so it doesn’t matter how ridiculous the evidence or lack is. That just won’t get reported, and questions will never get asked.
With 9/11, there was a similar media cover-up, of course, and that’s something most of here in the choir would agree on. However, once you open the no-planes pandora’s box and see for yourself that it’s a laughable claim (and that video trickery was involved), it’s crystal clear that the media itself is just as guilty as those who placed the explosive materials in the buildings.
But first you have to get past your indoctrinated notion that the no-planes theory is total hogwash. When you do, you’ll realize that even the alternative sources you’ve clung to for years are either compromised themselves or simply ignorant of what becomes glaring common sense once your eyes are opened.
SEPTEMBER CLUES
The Central Role of the News Media on 9/11
http://septemberclues.info/
The Great American Psy-Opera – part 6, What Planes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJU55FzcM2A
The Great American Psy-Opera – part 7, The Key
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds
“But first you have to get past your indoctrinated notion that the no-planes theory is total hogwash.”~Mangrove
I won’t make this a “flame” Mangrove, but I will assure you that my notion that the “no-planes theory is total hogwash,” is hardly based on any “indoctrinated notion”, but is in fact based on my 30 plus years as a special effects artist in the motion picture industry, and my thorough examination of the claims that there were no planes that hit the WTC towers.
I offer you my own analysis of the subject at the following link:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/911-disinformation-no-planes-theory/
Note that not only the body of the article, but the further added discussion in the comments section is necessary to get the full analysis there.
\\][//
Mangrove,
My apologies, I meant to give you this URL, although both should be read to grasp the entire argument:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/disinformation-video-fakery/
\\][//
While I have not yet watched the films, I read the article and some of the comments. Yes, 911 was a false flag operation, but nowhere did I see reference to the real perpetrators. There is overwhelming evidence that the state of Israel carried out 911, and the sooner we expose the full deception of that false flag, and the sooner the crimes of 911 are solved, the greater our chances of preventing ever larger crimes against humanity. I would highly recommend reading Christopher Bollyn’s book “Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World”, and visit his website bollyn.com.
I watched Mr Mazzucco’s work on the Pentagon and thought that his breakdown on the damage vs 757 was excellent (more here if Mr Mazzucco is interested – http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279 ) but the NOC evidence ommission was depressing. He didn’t have to mention a flyover. He could have simply pointed out the directional damage versus the trajectory the witnesses describe. It’s up to the “official story” (whatever it has now morphed in to) supporters to fill those blanks. It’s like omitting the video of JFK’s assassination versus LHO’s alleged position.
Having said that, I fully understand when he says that “debunkers” jump at the first opportunity to shift the burden of proof. CIT found (and those trying to “debunk” the evidence keep finding themselves) witnesses to the NOC trajectory and then the burden of proof was heaped on to them to provide evidence for the only logical conclusion that this evidence could lead to. Somehow the importance of the impossibility of the lightpoles (and Lloyd England) being struck from this trajectory was relegated to a secondary, incidental issue. Hop, skip and jump to the Pentagon facade. So he’s definitely got a point.
On a sidenote…
There’s also the issue of physical evidence. There’s also the piece of alleged aircraft debris associated with witness Penny Elgas (also an NOC witness)
There’s documented proof on the standardized treatment, composition and maintenance of American Airlines aircraft. Across the board.
There’s visual evidence of the alleged aircraft in question.
There’s also the witness’ description of the piece in question (“like fibreglass”)
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18356&view=findpost&p=10810244
It didn’t come from N644AA “Flight 77”. Fact.
As an aside, why it’s been so difficult to drum up any interest in this has me baffled (not referring to anybody here btw).
Peace
OSS
Nice to see you aboard OSS, it’s been awhile.
\\][//
Hi Willy
Just back from whipping debunker ass at Debatepolitics mate 🙂
I’ve also been working on another project and had to keep myself out of the loop for a bit.
OSS
Hi OSS, good to see you back.
I agree with your comment about the Pentagon in Mazzucco’s film. People seem to get their panties in such a twist over the “flyover conclusion,” almost to the point of forgetting that the NOC trajectory is inconsistent with the physical damage, period.
Also, the omission of NOC was disappointing because Mazzucco’s film does do a fine job of shooting down “debunker” (anti-truth) talking points. Mazzucco could have really dealt a death blow to the anti NOC arguments too, had he brought up that piece of evidence. It would have been good to see him lay bare the ridiculousness of the talking point: “A person who saw the plane hit the building is by necessity a South Path witness.” Or how defenders of SOC will cherrypick fragments of printed witness quotes etc…
Hey kids I have a single up on CDBaby.com
It’s called, ‘No Soul’ by Willy Whitten
It is anti-establismentarian…so relevant to this thread…Lol
\\][//
I am repeating this comment by A. Wright [February 19, 2014 – 7:10 PM] on my own blog, in it’s entirety as written, as an example of how excruciatingly ludicrous and spurious the tortured logic of Anti-Truthers can be.
Behold the lame excuse for reasoning put forth without the slightest embarrassment by a constant toady of authority… :
\\][//
A. WRIGHT IS A LIAR
“‘NOC’ evidence. Surely an investigation that arrives at conclusions by ignoring the evidence against those conclusions can’t be regarded as having credibility and can hardly be described as scientific.”~A.Wright — February 15, 2014 – 3:03 PM
From the same link as my last comment. This assertion constantly repeated by agent Wright is simply a bald faced lie. There has been no evidence ignored in this case by the promoters of the ‘NOC’. There has been plenty of ignoring the actual evidence and testimony by the critics of the ‘NOC’ position.
All one has to do is go through the arguments on this very site to see with your own eyes the thorough treatment of said evidence.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
I pointed out before that, in arriving at their conclusion that the the plane did not hit the Pentagon ,CIT ignore practically all of the evidence , including the evidence from the eyewitness, that the plane hit the Pentagon. You can watch National Security Alert where they lay out and explain exactly the reasoning they use to come to their conclusion and it doesn’t include that evidence. There is hardly a mention in NSA that this evidence even exists. You can’t address evidence if it isn’t even mentioned. Craig Ranke presents the same argument in every interview.. Saying that you have arrived at a conclusion that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt without addressing the evidence against that conclusion., by definition undermines the credibility of that conclusion.
Bull Effing Crap, A. Wright.
A. Wright says:
CIT ignore practically all of the evidence , including the evidence from the eyewitness, that the plane hit the Pentagon. You can watch National Security Alert where they lay out and explain exactly the reasoning they use to come to their conclusion and it doesn’t include that evidence. There is hardly a mention in NSA that this evidence even exists.
A complete tissue of lies. You know as well as I do that a NoC path is inconsistent with the physical damage, and that the SoC path HAS to be true for the official story to be true. But as to your accusation that CIT didn’t address the issue of the witnesses saying that the plane hit the Pentagon:
IN NSA, RANKE’S NARRATION STATES AT 44:15: “While all these witnesses believe the plane hit the building, their unanimously corroborated placement of the plane is in direct contradiction with the South Side approach.”
And less than a minute further, the point about witnesses ducking, flinching, running the other way after first seeing the plane is made.
Darius Prather: “No body was really tryin to look to see if it would hit the building or not hit the building, everyone was running for their lives.”
Or how about at 49:34. Ranke: “Although he reported the plane hit the building, his corroborated placement of the plane on the north side proves it could not have.”
Oh, and those flight paths that the witnesses drew with a marker on overhead maps of the area: the line stops at the Pentagon each time.
It’s obvious from the film that no witness was suggesting flyover. Yet your ilk keep suggesting that CIT had backhandedly deceived viewers in some way or another. Anyone who has watched NSA knows that that’s not true, therefore, the conclusion is that people like you are not only trying to waste mine/Ruff’s/HR’s/OSS’s time, but you’re trying to dissuade any potential newbies from watching NSA for the first time
Now Wright, your ilk’s talking points about “cherrypicked witness statements” were successfully able to cognitively infiltrate the brain of nice guy Richard Gage a few years back, since a few people advocating this talking point were his “friends” and he wanted to be on their good side. But for those of us who have no sacred cows, we can see right through your bullshit.
I think you need to concede the points I made in this post here, or Mr. McKee should show you the door on grounds of intellectual insincerity, i.e. trolling.
@Adam Syed
Do you think I need to concede the points you made in your post?
I think Adam made that clear enough Wright. But I want more than that, I want a confession. You can’t possibly be serious with all this bullshit ululation you spew here.
Admit it, you are just a shill, playing toady boy for profit, or gain of some sort. No one who has been looking into 9/11 as long as you have can possibly still buy the official nonsense.
You continue this same ridiculous game of answering questions with the interjection of your own lame question. It is pathetic, and anyone with a lick of sense can read right through you oinky games here.
So buck up and be sincere or fuck off.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
Why do you always resort to this kind of intimidatory bluster ? Do actually think I’m not sincere about what I argue here? I’ve never questioned your sincerity or that you believe what you say you believe. Do have a problem with the idea of anyone disagreeing with you? If you imagine I am some kind of paid operative I’m afraid it is all in your imagination.
Hahahaha!…that would be “intimidating” you fool..!!
\\][//
So the question naturally becomes; Would Mr Wright admit that he/she/it is an online covert operator when accused point blank? Well it is another ludicrous question with an obvious answer, of course not. Lying is the first part of deception. Pretense is the cover of any agent.
It is not silly, jejune, or unlikely to think that there is infiltration on this site by agenteur, whether corporate {NGO} or government sponsored. The job is part of the growing industry of public spycraft, as the following document makes very clear:
JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group) … based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations”.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/
\\][//
@Adam Syed
Just in case you think I consider what you said in that post to be valid I had better respond to it.
What I said in my previous post, which you called ‘ A tissue of lies’
Quote
“I pointed out before that, in arriving at their conclusion that the the plane did not hit the Pentagon ,CIT ignore practically all of the evidence , including the evidence from the eyewitness, that the plane hit the Pentagon. You can watch National Security Alert where they lay out and explain exactly the reasoning they use to come to their conclusion and it doesn’t include that evidence. There is hardly a mention in NSA that this evidence even exists. You can’t address evidence if it isn’t even mentioned. Craig Ranke presents the same argument in every interview.. Saying that you have arrived at a conclusion that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt without addressing the evidence against that conclusion., by definition undermines the credibility of that conclusion.”
I don’t appreciate being called a liar by you or anyone else but since I know this is the usual response here on this forum I usually don’t respond to it since it just diverts the discussion into the usual juvenile name-calling baloney.
CIT arrived at their conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon without addressing the vast majority of the evidence against that conclusion. In National Security Alert they present their evidence and they explain exactly how they came to their conclusion. They put their conclusion up there ‘The plane did not hit the Pentagon’, having presented almost none of the evidence that the plane did hit the Pentagon. They ignore almost all of that evidence in coming to their conclusion. What is or isn’t in NSA is not a matter of opinion , it is a matter of fact. Having arrived at that conclusion they then dismiss evidence that contradicts that conclusion, evidence that played no part in arriving at the conclusion. You provide quotes from NSA that illustrate this
“Although he reported the plane hit the building, his corroborated placement of the plane on the north side proves it could not have.”
You prove something by addressing all of the evidence, for and against it. You don’t ‘prove’ something first using the evidence for it and then dismiss the evidence against it because you have already ‘proven’ it.
This is a question of logical deduction which applies to investigating anything , a crime, a plane crash , what happened at the Pentagon or anything else. The fact that most of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon is missing from NSA, which claims to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, means it is based on an illogical and flawed evidence assessment. If you watch NSA it is clear where the flaws are and it undermines the credibility of any conclusions it presents.
“I pointed out before that, in arriving at their conclusion that the the plane did not hit the Pentagon ,CIT ignore practically all of the evidence…” A. Wright
This is not CIT Wright. I am not going to argue with you about CIT. I am making the point that we have investigated ALL of the witness testimonies on this thread, and OSS has given his analysis here and at P4T. It is getting very old, your making these spurious allegations in spite of the distance traveled since National Security Alert came out. You are out of date, your shelf life is expired. And my patience with you has expired as well. Only a toady for authority keeps pounding the same dead horse as relentlessly as you.
\\][//
Wright, you say above at 4:16 PM about Graham MacQueen:
“It’s not an argument that makes much logical sense and I find that surprising for someone who is an academic.”
Frankly Wright, what you call “logical sense” is so unimpressive that I find your whole bag of tricks a sack of bullshit chips. What I find “surprising” is that you continue to patter on here, where you know all concerned with this site can see right through your flimsy rhetorical jabber.
You have wasted enough of the forum’s, and my own time. Go tell it to JREF, or some place that does the same giggle dance you do. You have struck out.
\\][//
“giggle dance” – hahaha
Pretty much sums this guy up!
A Wright, which part of N644AA did this piece allegedly come from?
http://i.imgbox.com/Vf84rp8h.jpg
A Wright, name just one confirmed, unambiguous witness to the directional damage path.
A Wright, please point out the fires that burned continuously for 3.5 – 4 hours on the lower floors of Building 7.
Cheers (and not holding my breath)
OSS
A. Wright, you’ve been asked some fair and relevant questions: can you provide an answer to any of them?
I know I will not be holding my breath for a meaningful response from the official cover up (OCU) loyalist A.Wright. There may be a response mind you but it will not be a meaningful one.
Yea Adam,
I have my doubts too. But if he just disappears and stays disappeared, that would be fine by me. It makes me cranky dealing with such clowns. Especially when you know damn well they are disingenuous – and don’t really believe any of the wankaroo they are spewing.
\\][//
AdamR
Thing is, A Wright will have been hovering over this blog and will have seen these questions and, unlike people like ourselves, won’t respond directly. He’ll “answer” with more questions, use wordplay, or simply duck out for a while.
I guarantee that he won’t answer the question on the alleged Elgas debris.
I was actually just going through my archived mail from days of yonder last night. One correspondence between myself and Craig pointed me to the following 2012 article:
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/hollywood-911-feature-to-favour-human-drama-and-safe-evidence/
…and was reminded of two things: (1) It was you, OSS, who converted HR firmly into the “pro CIT camp” – which was well done. and (2) A Wright was wordsmithing us with his spin back then also, almost two years ago. A true jack-in-the-box.
AdamS
Wow. Me and Willy did 15 rounds in that blog lol. That’s what I was referring to about the difference between the (real) truthseekers and duhbunkers. We stand our ground and debate (with a few rants and rattle launches scattered here and there) while others dodge and avoid.
The overwhelming witness testimony point to the aircraft flying north of Citgo.. A Wright’s response? Hop, skip and jump to the alleged impact. By his logic, the plane flew NOC and impacted according to the eyewitness testimony. Why? Because he can’t and won’t name any unambiguous, verified witness who contradicts the NOC witnesses. And he believes that people’s testimony would be more accurate during the most violent portion of the event. Even though there are scores of witnesses within the immediate vicinity who claim that they ducked, flinched or ran away (multiple quotes available)
He’s claiming that people were more confused as to where they saw a 100 ton aircraft when iit was a matter of feet away from them, by them, over their heads (Morin, Turcios and the two cops for Christ sake) or when it was seen from positions where they couldn’t physically see the directional damage path, but that they somehow steeled themselves to watch an explosion felt 3km or so away and a 200ft diameter fireball.
Seriously? I even have problems watching a car that I know is going to smack another. Or even trying to keep my hand from covering my face when I know a toddler is going to fall!
A 100 ton aircraft travelling 50 or 60 feet above my head at a few hundred miles an hour, engines roaring…..piece of piss, huh?
(Important Note: I’ve fallen into the duhbunker trap of hypothecizing why people didn’t report a certain event while the event that was reported in detail becomes a secondary issue – I can’t help it – I, unlike duhbunkers, need to know the full story, and have it proven to me and by me. Unlike duhbunkers, if I’m proven wrong by following leads myself, I’ll throw my hands up and start again. I don’t stick to a bible on how to respond to certain questions. I follow the facts. And if certain “facts” are sourced by people with a track record for sociopathy and deceit, I’m a failure as a human being.
This is the truthseeker weakness (and strength) used by duhbunkers. Too damn honest.)
And when Wright says that all other “evidence” isn’t taken into account, he never specifies exactly what this other “evidence” actually is. I know that the word, and word alone, of the powers that be satisfy him, but then again, apparently every obvious government malfeasance (TWA800, JFK, Oklahoma) is solely twoofer paranoia.
Duhbunkers are dishonest and cowardly. But they serve a purpose. They make us dig deeper, dot our i’s and cross our t’s. Thank you Mr Wright.
Yes it was indeed OSS’ arguments that solidified my position on the Pentagon event, I am forever grateful for his efforts. I know he was frustrated with me for some time on that thread.
Lol… I also had a hankerin’ towards the position before I “outed” with it, and that was not cluing in Legge too soon, while we were still talking by email. I figured he was stalking the conversation at this site, and didn’t want to break bad with him here until confronting him personally in our email discussion.
\\][//
http://youtu.be/ywW7M6pidH4
\\][//
While I don’t want to make this thread about A. Wright, I think is is beneficial to analyze and deconstruct the subtext of any state propagandist.
Wright left a lot of openings that weren’t remarked upon. One that I think is of some importance is the charge against Graham MacQueen for his lack of “logic” and linking that to the fact that MacQueen is “an academic” is telling, as to the assumptions that would spawn such an assertion.
Among the assumptions would be that “an academic” is automatically a logical thinker, or in most instances should be. But this in itself is an illogical assumption to make in a pathological society such as that in Amerika, and most of the western world. Disproportion is a standard lens of western academia. I touched on this earlier in my commentary about John Gatto, and the links to Sutton and Iserbyt.
It is such deconstruction that illuminates the false presumptions of the paradigm the propaganda shills speak from. I think this needs to be stated directly, as well as making the counter arguments against the particular falsehoods such agenteur bring to the table.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
I don’t know why you are trying to further undermine Mr. MacQueens credibility but that’s up to you. I expect a certain amount of logical thinking from most people , I expect it more from someone like Mr. MacQueen who has some academic training and has written an article on this particular subject with his tables and appendices etc. That he then puts forward an illogical conclusion in this article does surprise me. An illogical argument always surprises me no matter who puts it forward, whether they have degrees or an alphabet of letters after their names or not. I’ve always thought the most important degree to have is a degree of common sense.
“I don’t know why you are trying to further undermine Mr. MacQueens credibility…”
Wright,
The ONLY credibility being undermined here is your own. And I think we are all much surprised that you continue here when it is so obvious that we find your so-called “logic” to be incredibly sterile of the meaning of that word.
And once again, I shall point out the lack of any attempt whatsoever to give the answers to some very simple questions put to you. You prove once again that you are simply a flake, and a toady for the indefensible official narrative.
You have pushed my patience to the limit, and I don’t want you to address me again. Not one more time Wright, I am totally sick of your nonsense.
\\][//
As I was saying….
So predictable.
Common sense definition:
“sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.”
What does your “normal native intelligence” tell you about the streak of light seen by hundreds just before TWA800 exploded?
Or about multiple witnesses, including witnesses to a videotape, of John Doe 2 in Oklahoma?
Or about the fact that you have never attempted to name just one witness who describes the official trajectory at the Pentagon?
I wonder, given the OP, what A Wright thinks of the evidence that Pearl Harbour was a sacrificial lamb to get the US involved in WW2?
There must be something that tells your “normal native intelligence” that those who supply, pad out and heavily edit all questionable “official stories” are at least hiding something?
You do realize that this form of blanket denial (yes, your silence is just as damning) makes you a cultist?
Cultists have no “common sense”.
Yes OSS,
The National Security State is and has always been a huge Crisis Cult. And of course those who opt into such a cult are typically delusional and paranoid, and keep a large stock of Brainwashing Detergent at hand.
And opting into such a cult is as simple as being born here…it is the opting out that takes effort and individual enterprise, personal strength of character, independent thinking and imagination, and yes; what would be ‘common sense’, if the term weren’t so universally maligned in this pathological culture.
\\][//
You guys should find out who’s conspiring to make you so dam stupid.
Lol,
That was a clever comment Brian. A lot of SUBSTANCE…{read as satire}
And as far as intellect goes you might learn to spell ‘damned’ correctly…aye?
\\][//
It really undermines your point when you have a spelling error in the word right before “stupid.”
It is also quite remarkable that Mr Byers hasn’t noticed that we have been speaking directly to who it is that is conspiring to dumb down Americans, or make us “dam stupid” as he puts it. But if his reading comprehension matches his attitude and spelling abilities, it is likely he would miss the points made here at any rate.
Nevertheless he should check out Gatto and Iserbyt if he gets past “Run Spot Run” some day.
\\][//
Craig,
I would like to know, if you know what the point is in doing a video interview in a noisy crowded restaurant, wherein the words of the person being interviewed are drown out by the chatter of the maddening crowd.
Is this to convey the ‘plain folks’ – ‘regular people’ image?
I am afraid I have to report that I was not impressed with the approach.
That being said, I certainly wish you and this new book project success.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cwgservices/american-history-101-its-not-what-you-think
\\][//
Just saw “The New Pearl Harbor” and my jaw practically hit the floor. What in the world has happened to America?
Willy, I understand how you feel about the video. I had the same reaction. I think you’ll see these problems with the approach being addressed.
Yea Craig,
This video should be canned and something else done to replace it. Maybe you don’t even need a video there, just more text to explain what you guys are doing.
At any rate, good luck on your new project!
\\][//
Stay tuned.
“To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
~Voltaire
Make an honest assessment; what group of people would you feel most uncomfortable criticizing in public?
\\][//
The North American Genocide is arguably the worst and most complete in history as we know it.
So why isn’t this more generally known and acknowledged? This isn’t something to simply shrug off as something from ‘The Past’. The ramifications and consequences remain to this day. It is a fact that the Nazis had a strong and valid argument that they were simply following the example of the US government and society. And any who balk at such a statement simply do not know and understand history.
Does this argument made by Nazi intellectuals excuse them in anyway whatsoever? Hardly. Yet the other part of this equation is that there is no excuse for us to deny their valid points.
Now, I would like for someone such as our visiting intellectual Brian Byers, to address this comment. I would even like to hear from a new person beginning to grasp the truths of 9/11, such as Catbird, who asked above, “What in the world has happened to America?”. For what happened to America is a tale centuries old that is yet to be told honestly.
\\][//
Yes, HR,
The “never again” concept is always instilled into American schoolchildren using the Nazi example, but does not at all seem to be applied to the genocide that occurred on their own continent.
Yea, it seems we were all raised on fairytales. The hard truth is so opposite of that. And most people haven’t a clue. The ‘American Exceptionalism’ comes in the training manual. And is reinforced at every turn. It’s jingobells all the way home.
Don’t forget the phrase, “The only good injun is a dead injun.”
\\][//
Willy
I think that shock tactics, images and statistics are necessary to drive the message home. It’s the only way.
OSS,
The shock tactics, images and statistics, are all there, provided by the same Public Relations Regime we hope to defeat – it is just doing the proper counter spin of all of that, and delivering it with ingenuity.
That is one thing that Mazzucco does a pretty good job of. I think he needs some addendum’s – especially in the way the Pentagon issue is dealt with. We will see if our feedback will help on that topic.
\\][//
“An iron rule exists in genetic social evolution. It is that selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, while groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. The victory can never be complete; the balance of selection pressures cannot move to either extreme. If individual selection were to dominate, societies would dissolve. If group selection were to dominate, human groups would come to resemble ant colonies”.~Edward O. Wilson
Of course the danger in the postmodern high-tech world comes from the new global entity, uncomprehended by the majority of mankind, and it’s thrust being steered by the global elite and their push for “Transhumanism”: wherein; human groups WILL come to resemble ant colonies.
If we come to comprehend what both Ellul and Wilson are saying this dystopian future becomes clear as the path we are now on.
\\][//
The Secret Playbook of Social Media Censors – The “Counter Reset”
By Washington’s Blog
“…Specifically, the government spends a great deal of manpower and money to monitor which stories, memes and social movements are developing the momentum to actually pose a threat to the status quo. For example, the Federal Reserve, Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies all monitor social media for stories critical of their agencies … or the government in general. Other governments – and private corporations – do the same thing….
…“Social proof” is a related concept. Social proof is the well-known principle stating that people will believe something if most other people believe it. And see this. In other words, most people have a herd instinct, so if a story ranks highly, more people are likely to believe it and be influenced by it.
That is why vested interests go to great lengths – using computer power and human resources – to monitor social media momentum. If a story critical of one of these powerful entities is gaining momentum, they will go to great lengths to kill its momentum, and destroy the social proof which comes with alot of upvotes, likes or recommendations in social media.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-playbook-of-social-media-censors-the-counter-reset/5370943
\\][//
“You prove something by addressing all of the evidence, for and against it. You don’t ‘prove’ something first using the evidence for it and then dismiss the evidence against it because you have already ‘proven’ it.
This is a question of logical deduction which applies to investigating anything , a crime, a plane crash , what happened at the Pentagon or anything else.”~A. Wright – February 28, 2014 – 1:36 AM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Has anyone here kept count of how many times Wright has laid this same exact rap on us here? Has there been anyone on this forum who has ever disputed this general concept?
I haven’t read anyone here who has argued against this idea.
I have read many questions put to Mr Wright that he has steadfastly refused to answer. Questions that he ignores while repeating this general theory of forensic procedure that absolutely nobody has an argument with; treating the issue as if it is some novel idea that no one here has ever considered.
He goes on to make the same assertions time after time, as if repetition of a lie somehow will transform it into a truth. He will not address a single specific “witness” or “piece of evidence”, while making the claim that there is a superabundance of evidence that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon, and that there are indeed valid witnesses to this.
We have given Mr Wright every opportunity to come forward with these specific arguments, but he has refused, choosing instead to repeat his standard “bla bla bla” and play the victim of unfair abuse. The fact is Wright is not a victim, but a predator attempting to victimize us, the regular members of this forum. It is a form of harassment to play these games with such persistence.
But Wright does present us with the opportunity to point out his disingenuous disruption techniques. And it can be pointed out once again, that there are no valid nor successful counter arguments that have been made to the position held by us on Truth and Shadows.
\\][//
@A. Wright, I agree with Hybridrogue1 that you do not directly address the evidence that you consider to be so flawed. Do you deny that a north path is incompatible with impact? What is it about the witnesses in National Security Alert that you do not find credible? Do you think they are confused, lying? There is a great deal of evidence against a plane impact that supplements what CIT has done. We get a good summary of why a 757 did not cause the observed damage in Mazzucco’s film. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has also dealt with the impossible speed and maneuvering of the approaching plane, not to mention that the FDR data, even if it is fake, still shows the plane as being too high to have hit the building. CIT, David Ray Griffin, and others have also pointed out problems with other witnesses who claim plane impact. Some turn out not to have been in a position to see any impact, some were Pentagon or other government employees, some worked for defense contractors. And let’s not forget that this was designed to fool people. It was the illusion of a plane crash. So of course some people will have been successfully fooled.
Perhaps you can address one question that I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to: What happened to the wings?
@Craig McKee
What I have addressed here and on other threads is that the definitive, proven beyond a reasonable doubt conclusion that a plane flew over the Pentagon is based on a flawed assessment of the evidence by those who have promoted it. The result of that conviction by those who have promoted it is that they think anyone who disputes it therefore can’t dispute it so they must have some other motive for doing so. You only have to read or listen to anything Craig Ranke says on the subject to see this conviction that there is no logical alternative to the flyover theory because he thinks his conclusions are logical therefore and can’t be disputed.
………………………………………..
Quote HR1 from his previous post
“You prove something by addressing all of the evidence, for and against it. You don’t ‘prove’ something first using the evidence for it and then dismiss the evidence against it because you have already ‘proven’ it.
This is a question of logical deduction which applies to investigating anything , a crime, a plane crash , what happened at the Pentagon or anything else.”~A. Wright – February 28, 2014 – 1:36 AM
Has anyone here kept count of how many times Wright has laid this same exact rap on us here? Has there been anyone on this forum who has ever disputed this general concept?
I haven’t read anyone here who has argued against this idea.”
………………………………..
I realise Hybridrogue1 doesn’t speak for everyone on this forum but I have never got the impression, and you can correct me if I’m wrong , that anyone here ever agreed with what I said about CIT and the conclusions they draw from the evidence being indisputable and definitive etc. If he’s saying others agree with what I have been saying all along about CIT I’d have to say it has been well disguised in critical dismissive comments laced with accusations of trying to cause dissention in the movement and being an agent etc. which is an odd accusation given that I’ve been totally open about the fact that I disagree with the ‘inside job’ theories. Also what I’ve pointed out about CIT should have the effect of lessening these divisions in the 911 truth movement since if people on both sides were to recognise the flawed nature of the idea being promoted on the basis of the simple logic of it , then they would be able to recognise that there is no reason for this at times vitriolic dispute at all. In fact I think one of the first things I posted on this forum started with the phrase ‘ Far be it for me to lessen disagreement in the 911 truth movement but..’ or words to that effect.
On the question of the actual evidence of what happened at the Pentagon my conclusion is that a plane hit the building without any reasonable doubt. The alternative to that would involve a scenario so far fetched and unlikely that there is no way I could call it reasonable. The difference between the plane hitting the building and a plane flying over it is not a difference of 90 feet, it is the difference between a likely reading of the evidence and what I consider to be a totally absurd idea that would have to involve a totally absurd plan and an interpretation of evidence that has no credibility as far as I’m concerned. If I’m choosing between a plausible scenario and a totally implausible one I will go for the plausible one. People can come up with any number of implausible scenarios of the Barbara Honneger variety but don’t ask me to dismiss the plausible one in favour of them.
If you want me to go through the evidence and the questions you ask I can do that but just to take a couple of them briefly.
I don’t think any of the witnesses are lying. Obviously some witnesses are mistaken about some of the things they say ,since their evidence is contradictory.
If the plane flew north of the gas station then it could not have lined up and hit the lightpoles and hit the building. So they are obviously wrong about one of those things.
Almost all of the witnesses in NSA are Government employees and defence contractors.
The wings are part of the plane so therefore ended up just as the rest of the plane did , in a mangled disintegrated shredded mass of debris ,mostly inside the building along with the unfortunate passengers and crew. The collapse of the facade then buried that debris under tons of building rubble.
“I realise Hybridrogue1 doesn’t speak for everyone on this forum but I have never got the impression, and you can correct me if I’m wrong , that anyone here ever agreed with what I said about CIT and the conclusions they draw from the evidence being indisputable and definitive etc.”~Wright
This is baffling reconstruction…and I don’t know how you missed the point I am making here.
I am saying merely that the First Proposal you make is generally true as far as investigation and critical assessment. That I know of none here who would dispute this quote I took from you:
““You prove something by addressing all of the evidence, for and against it. You don’t ‘prove’ something first using the evidence for it and then dismiss the evidence against it because you have already ‘proven’ it.
This is a question of logical deduction which applies to investigating anything , a crime, a plane crash , what happened at the Pentagon or anything else.”
That is a general proposition. But that is not what you are actually doing with your analysis. You are the one who will not discuss the specifics of the evidence and testimonials. It is flabbergasting that you think you follow the First Proposal in your warped interpretations.
I certainly would NOT suggest that anyone agrees with you on any other aspect than the one in your First Proposal. And I think that most here would agree with me that the First Proposal you make is something learned by rote, something you do not really understand. Therefore your attempted application of this ‘maxim’ is simply jumbled nonsense. I hate to keep breaking it to you Wright, but you flounder in confusion.
I mean, you couldn’t even figure out the distinction I made between your First Proposal and the rest of the whacked out illogical pap you smear. It is in fact surreal dealing with you. Really weird.
But don’t you worry, there are legions of plastic widgets just like you. You ‘fit in’, you are part of the hive.
There is a prime profile category of the population, a majority – perhaps a vast majority, that I call TVZombies, or TVZ for short. They are simple to identify, as their attitudes all have a common denominator, they are captives of the Public Relations Regime. They have bought into the bullshit paradigm fed to them from birth to death. But there are sub-categories dependent on intelligence, personality traits, and emotional states. The plight of these people, and their weight of numbers placing us within that same consequence they rush toward must be comprehended.
\\][//
Let me put this to you very simple like Wright,
Most of the witnesses who were in a position to say where the plane was compared to their surroundings describe a north approach. They do not comprehend the ramifications of this. Some will swear that they saw the plane hit the building, and speak to it in some detail in some cases.
But Wright, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Flat out point blank impossible for the plane to have struck the Pentagon at that trajectory and impacted at the damage site which is at an entirely different angle. It is that simple Wright. And I am not talking about the CIT witnesses exclusively here, I am speaking to the list on that spreadsheet – and assessing those who really had the proper perspective to know the placement of the plane. Those who had a clear enough view – those who were so close that the whole thing would have happened in an instant, etc.
We have also dismissed some testimony on the basis of conflict of interest for some of those in the military industrial complex. You may think this is a joke, and without merit. That is one of your problems, taking seriously the words of those who are under a chain of command in the military, or the militarized industry, and militarized society overall.
YOU in fact see authority in this same light, that as valid and honest. There is nothing more naive than that on this planet.
I address the wider readership here as well. These assessments are not some far out bullshit tin hat mumbo jumbo – they are the most practical of all. Truth is like a rose. If you wear rose colored glasses the truth is not in sight, it blends in with anything of a rose hue and is camouflaged.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
I posted a short comment here and Adam Syed replied to it – headed memorably ‘Bull Effing Crap A.Wright” in which he tried to refute what I said about CIT by presenting quotes from NSA which included the following:
“Or how about at 49:34. Ranke: “Although he reported the plane hit the building, his corroborated placement of the plane on the north side proves it could not have.”
I replied to that by pointing out
“You prove something by addressing all of the evidence, for and against it. You don’t ‘prove’ something first using the evidence for it and then dismiss the evidence against it because you have already ‘proven’ it.
This is a question of logical deduction which applies to investigating anything , a crime, a plane crash , what happened at the Pentagon or anything else.”
This is the ‘First Proposal’ as you call it. You say you agree with it and you say you think no one else on this forum disagrees with it.
That quote from NSA shows that CIT do not recognise this basic principle of logical deduction. Their whole conclusion that the plane did not hit the Pentagon beyond a reasonable doubt is based on their failure to apply this basic principle of logical deduction. They repeat it over and over every time they talk and write about it. They ignore a basic principle of evidence assessment.
What is really surprising is that you then go yourself and say –
quote HR1
“Most of the witnesses who were in a position to say where the plane was compared to their surroundings describe a north approach. They do not comprehend the ramifications of this. Some will swear that they saw the plane hit the building, and speak to it in some detail in some cases.
But Wright, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Flat out point blank impossible for the plane to have struck the Pentagon at that trajectory and impacted at the damage site which is at an entirely different angle. It is that simple Wright. And I am not talking about the CIT witnesses exclusively here, I am speaking to the list on that spreadsheet – and assessing those who really had the proper perspective to know the placement of the plane. Those who had a clear enough view – those who were so close that the whole thing would have happened in an instant, etc.”
What is IMPOSSIBLE? For the plane to have hit the building and the lightpoles, or for it to have flown north of the gas station? Which one is impossible? They are contradictory. It is contradictory evidence. They are mutually exclusive. ( CIT’s method is to arrive at a conclusion about one of them as if it didn’t have anything to do with the second, as if it were a ‘simple claim’ , a ‘simple detail’ and then say that it has everything to do with the second, so the second must be false.)
You say
“We have also dismissed some testimony on the basis of conflict of interest for some of those in the military industrial complex.”
The witnesses in NSA are almost all government employees, defense contractors and people who work in the Pentagon – the reason evidence is dismissed is because of the evidence they present not because of who they are. Where is the ‘conflict of interest’ in saying ‘I saw a plane crashing into the Pentagon’?
A. Wright says:
>”What is IMPOSSIBLE? For the plane to have hit the building and the lightpoles, or for it to have flown north of the gas station? Which one is impossible?”
. . . . .
A. Wright is playing games. A. Wright is disingenuous, no one can possibly be the idiot he appears to be and even be able to type such drivel. A. Wright knows perfectly well what is IMPOSSIBLE, because this has been spelled out to him countless times.
In fact I explained in the comment that he is answering exactly why it is impossible for a witness to describe the north path approach to have seen the plane impact.
The directional damage inflicted on and in that building could not have been from a plane coming in on that trajectory these witnesses provide.
The argument that the testimony is self-contradictory, and therefore there can be no judgement as to which portion of the testimony is true is unreasonable. The combined testimony is overwhelming for a north side approach. Not all the witnesses that had the POV to place the plane’s approach claim to have seen impact. But they are all certain of one thing, which direction the plane came from…for the best witnesses, they were able to watch the approach for several moments, and these are people familiar with the surroundings and landmarks. The likelihood of them being mistaken in this aspect is practically nil. So the assumption that the plane impacted the building is the portion of testimony that is clearly wrong.
It is not unreasonable, it is not an arbitrary choice of which portion of the testimony is almost certain to be true, and which portion is most certainly false.
. . . . .
>” Where is the ‘conflict of interest’ in saying ‘I saw a plane crashing into the Pentagon’?”~Wright
Wright clearly does not understand the concept of ‘conflict of interest’. A conflict of interest does not arise from any particular testimony. Conflict of Interest is a matter of the Relationship of a particular party to the Situation at hand. So his question is misframed and meaningless.
\\][//
http://youtu.be/HUWnGXAfabA
Cognitive Infiltration manual
\\][//
A Wright
It’s impossible for the aircraft to hit the building from NOC. End of story.
Stop pretending to debate Wright. You talk in general terms about “witnesses” and “evidence” yet you constantly refuse to discuss specifics.
Let’s recap.
1. No clear video or photographic evidence of an alleged aircraft striking the building.
2. No documented evidence of aircraft parts or alleged FDR.
3. No radar evidence beyond the Sheraton Hotel bar two datapoints that show both NOC and on course for South Parking. That’s 11 seconds missing.
4. Coincidentally (barf), alleged FDR data that the last 6, 7 or 8 (or whatever it will become) seconds that couldn’t be deciphered by the NTSB. Wait, strike that. You dispute the NTSB findings on alleged time of impact. I forgot.
5. An alleged 95% success rate in identification of alleged passengers (tissue)from a corrupt forensics lab, on an aircraft that supposedly “liquified” during the alleged penetration.
6. A failed damage report that could not explain the lack of marks from extremities of a Boeing 757. Among many other major issues with the alleged damage.
7. An alleged piece of white composite material debris from a Boeing 757 (the Penny Elgas piece) that you won’t find on any Boeing 757 as the only white section of a Boeing 757 is the decorative white stripe that is entirely aircraft aluminium.
What’s left?
Witnesses.
Now,
1. How many described the aircraft as flying over 500mph?
2. How many described the aircraft as executing a sharp right bank? A left bank? A wobble?
3. How many describe the aircraft as not flying over the Navy Annex?
4. How many describe the aircraft as flying south of Citgo? And on a trajectory that lines up with level flight through the lightpoles?
5. How many describe the seeing the aircraft strike the lightpoles?
6. How many witnesses describe an NOC entry point and trajectory on to Route 27?
Before you try to be a smartass, yes, Eric Dihle overhead people describing a flyover. And Roosevelt Roberts claimed to see a second aircraft in South Parking.
When Wright reappears in a few days spamming the same crap, and in case I miss his non answer, could somebody hold his feet to the fire on these questions?
PS Willy and Craig, I feel your pain trying to talk to this guy. I really do lads.
OSS
@OSS
“It’s impossible for the aircraft to hit the building from NOC. End of story.”
A very good summary of the logic of CIT. It’s impossible for the aircraft to hit the building from NOC. End of investigation. ( Ignore all the evidence that it did hit the building and therefore didn’t fly NOC. ) The ‘First Proposal’ as HR1 put it.
“1. No clear video or photographic evidence of an alleged aircraft striking the building.”
If a plane hit a building and there was no clear video of it, does that mean it didn’t hit the building?
“2. No documented evidence of aircraft parts or alleged FDR.”
That means all they have to do is publish some serial numbers of plane parts and you would believe that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Or would you? I may be going out on a limb here but I think you would say they just copied it from the planes maintenance log. In other words if there were serial numbers you wouldn’t believe it anyway.
“3. No radar evidence beyond the Sheraton Hotel bar two datapoints that show both NOC and on course for South Parking. That’s 11 seconds missing.”
Low altitude. No radar evidence of the plane flying away over the Pentagon , across the threshold of the airport runway and over Washington ,north and away up-river…. How many seconds missing is that?
“4. Coincidentally (barf), alleged FDR data that the last 6, 7 or 8 (or whatever it will become) seconds that couldn’t be deciphered by the NTSB. Wait, strike that. You dispute the NTSB findings on alleged time of impact. I forgot.”
The NTSB didn’t do a full report. You are imagining what I dispute and what I think. The missing data at the end of the recording that was decoded – why does that make you ill? (you should take something for that – a dose of reality might be good). Simple reason – Pilots for Truth didn’t discover it. The ‘not invented here’ syndrome. That and it shows the plane descending to the Pentagon. You don’t like that. Now the NTSB are in on it.
“5. An alleged 95% success rate in identification of alleged passengers (tissue)from a corrupt forensics lab, on an aircraft that supposedly “liquified” during the alleged penetration.”
Did the plane liquify? Did you handle the shredded remains of the bodies and put them in body bags? Did you do the DNA testing? Show me the result of a DNA test that you can’t put the word ‘alleged’ in front of. Now the people in the lab doing the DNA tests are in on it. (this could have been avoided by actually crashing the plane into the Pentagon but obviously they decided to do it the easy way, by involving yet more people in this brilliant plan.)
“6. A failed damage report that could not explain the lack of marks from extremities of a Boeing 757. Among many other major issues with the alleged damage.”
To explain something you first need to be trying to explain it. If you fail to explain something it could be because of a failure on your part to explain it – especially since you are not trying to explain it , or rather , trying desperately not to explain it. You don’t want it explained. The tail is swept back as are the wings.
“7. An alleged piece of white composite material debris from a Boeing 757 (the Penny Elgas piece) that you won’t find on any Boeing 757 as the only white section of a Boeing 757 is the decorative white stripe that is entirely aircraft aluminium.”
What company made the piece of composite material? I presume you have seen it, examined it, gone around a Boeing 757 in a hanger with the piece in your hand and tried to locate the area that this piece came from, and consulted with the people who actually make the plane. I presume you have done that. A little bit premature to be stating that it is not from a Boeing 757 then. So we have a big complex military deception to pretend a particular type of plane crashed into the Pentagon and they plant a piece of debris- and it’s not even from the type of plane that’s supposed to have crashed!! And they put it in the Smithsonian for everyone to see! Not very convincing.
“What’s left?
Witnesses.
Now,
1. How many described the aircraft as flying over 500mph?”
How many witnesses had aircraft rated radar guns? How many witnesses have seen a large airliner flying at 500 mph close to the ground? How many people have ever seen a large airliner flying at 500 mph close to the ground?
“2. How many described the aircraft as executing a sharp right bank? A left bank? A wobble?”
They were all watching the same plane.
“3. How many describe the aircraft as not flying over the Navy Annex?”
How many witnesses were asked? When a plane is described as ‘over the Navy Annex’, is it over the Navy Annex or is it over the Navy Annex from their perspective?
“4. How many describe the aircraft as flying south of Citgo? And on a trajectory that lines up with level flight through the lightpoles?”
How many were asked? How many of the people who said ‘I saw the plane hit the building’ were asked to describe exactly where the plane flew as it approached the road and flew over the road? I’d ask them. I wouldn’t present as evidence something they didn’t say because they weren’t asked. How many describe the plane hitting the building? If it did it could only have hit it from one direction. Why weren’t they interviewed in NSA?
“5. How many describe the seeing the aircraft strike the lightpoles?”
A trick question. There are a number of witnesses who say the plane hit something as it crossed the road, a road sign for example, and others who said they saw flashes as it crossed the road. There is a cab driver who said the plane flew over and a lightpole came through his windscreen. What happened to his evidence? Are you allowed to be a witness to a lightpole hitting your own car?
Do you think , like CIT do , that there were people there who are lying about the plane hitting the Pentagon? So these complicit operatives ,who say ‘ I saw the plane hit the Pentagon’ and they are then asked ‘Did you see the plane hit the lightpoles? ‘ ‘Well, I’m not sure I think I may have seen them afterwards…’!! All these liars there to ‘sell the story’ that a plane hit the Pentagon and they don’t say ‘Yes I saw the plane hit the lightpoles’.?The big ‘staged’ plane-hits-lightpoles scenario ,including the plane-hits-lightpole-hits-cab part that was ‘ a major part of the propaganda’ to sell the ‘official story’ and all they have to do is say they saw it. Just say they saw it hit any of the lightpoles. Weren’t all these people supposed to be ducking and flinching etc – so didn’t see the plane hit the Pentagon – wouldn’t that explain why they didn’t see it hit the lighpoles? People saying witnesses didn’t see the plane hit lightpoles are on shakey ground when they can’t find one witness who said they saw , not a plane hitting lightpoles in a couple of seconds , but an actual plane itself after it flew over the Pentagon in full view of a potential pool of witnesses 20 times larger. The actual plane itself.
“6. How many witnesses describe an NOC entry point and trajectory on to Route 27?”
About a dozen. How many were judging where the plane was by it’s distance from them and not by whether it was left of right relative to the gas station? How many were looking at the plane, and looking at the gas station and trying to judge where the plane was in relation to the gas station? How long did it take for the plane to pass the gas station? How come there estimates vary so wildly, when the plane was no great distance from them?
“Before you try to be a smartass, yes, Eric Dihle overhead people describing a flyover. And Roosevelt Roberts claimed to see a second aircraft in South Parking.”
Eric Dihle didn’t see what happened to the plane and heard some people say the plane kept going , and others say the plane hit the building. These are the witnesses in the same area where according to themselves ‘nobody was looking to see if the plane hit the building or didn’t hit the building’ ,and where ducking and diving for cover”. But that was when CIT were trying to dismiss their evidence about the plane hitting the building. In NSA you can see the animation of the plane from the Cemetery area and the Pentagon is hidden behind trees. I’d ask the people closer to the building, they had a better view. They say the plane hit the building. How come they didn’t get to be included in NSA? Roosevelt Roberts couldn’t have seen the plane flying over the Pentagon or in the lane 1 area of south parking, which is where he said he saw it, because it couldn’t have got there after it reached the Pentagon. It is aerodynamically impossible.
“When Wright reappears in a few days spamming the same crap, and in case I miss his non answer, could somebody hold his feet to the fire on these questions?”
“PS Willy and Craig, I feel your pain trying to talk to this guy. I really do lads.”
I feel your pain too.
A Wright
It IS impossible from NOC. Or do you deny this?
Again with “all the evidence”. Let’s see if you introduce, discuss or add anything in this regard…
It simply means that no, “there is no clear video or photographic evidence of an alleged aircraft striking the building.”
Got it.
Why the wordgames Wright. What ifs? Let’s deal in facts here.
No, there is “no documented evidence of aircraft parts or alleged FDR”
Got it.
You’ve just answered your own theory on why there would have been no radar data collected on any flyover. “Low altitude”.
At what height was the aircraft when it “disappeared” before the Sheraton Hotel? 3-400ft according to Stutt? Below what height will RADES not register a “hit”? I know the answer to that A Wright. Do you?
How far will an aircraft get flying at 4-500mph in 11 seconds? Is the Pentagon situated at just above sea level? How low do you think the aircraft could overfly the Pentagon @77ft plus 20ft ASL plus altitude above the building? I’ll give you a hint. Lower than RADES will register. 😉
Anyway, no there is “no radar evidence beyond the Sheraton Hotel bar two datapoints that show both NOC and on course for South Parking” and the area beyond would still be too low for RADES to register.
Name me one! Are there any witnesses interviewed by CIT, Jeff Hill, media or whoever that describe anything other than, or contradict in any way, the NOC flightpath? As for those who claimed to see the plane hit the building, who among them described the directional damage path?
“They weren’t asked”…. who?? Names!
That’s another big fat no, you can’t name a single witness who “describe[s] the aircraft as flying south of Citgo” And on a trajectory that lines up with level flight through the lightpoles”
Got it.
According to “skeptic” literature, yes it did. It was supposedly completely ripped to shreds within a distance the length of a 757 at 540-580mph. The point being, what state would the alleged passenger bodies be in? The FBI allegedly found tissue samples that were identified. Tissue samples that others couldn’t find until almost ten days after others had given up the search.
Don’t forget the issue of the alleged tissue being recovered from an area that supposedly recorded temperatures of over 1000°C (cremation point).
I can show where the forensics lab was outed for dispensing with 9/11 remains in a wastefill site. I can show where an empty casket purported to carry “5 unidentified victims” with full military honours with Pentagon victim families in attendance was “buried”.
Were they “in on it”? How about an overworked, overburdened forensics lab beng told to simply say that they had identified the “passengers” to lighten the load. And the stress.
Blah, blah…
The “tail is swept back”? That’s contained within the report? Did somebody describe seeing this? Did you see the tail on the lawn? Within the building?
So yes, there is a “failed damage report that could not explain the lack of marks from extremities of a Boeing 757. Among many other major issues with the alleged damage.”
Bingo.
Why do you keep trying to tag crap on to my straightforward questions?
The “Penny Elgas piece”? I have done my homework on this. It did not come from a Boeing 757. Images of N644AA, the 757 maintenance manual of polished surfaces, and a complete layout of composite areas of a 757, show that I’m right.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18356&view=findpost&p=10811356
You tell me where it’s from.
I’ll get to the second half of your “response” tomorrow.
Thanks for acknowledging that the “evidence” you keep spouting on about ranges from non existent to totally faith based opinion from a govt agency that has been proven to have deceived.
Mixed that last post up
I cut the rest of your irrelevant post.
So, as I said, “you dispute the NTSB findings on alleged time of impact.”. The alleged time of impact was not solely based on the FDR Wright. Either way, this alleged evidence contradicts your theory. And it’s part and parcel of the official story!
You’re the one that claims that the NTSB is incompetent. Typical duhbunker. Chop and change where the official story messed up. Tut tut.
Here, read and learn
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22540
A. Wright
Witnesses like Terry Morin, Albert Hemphill and Sean Boger, all aviation personnel, describe the aircraft as flying much slower. William Middleton too. You don’t need an “aircraft rated radar gun” to judge time. There’s a hell of a lot of difference between “8 – 10 seconds” and 2.5 – 3 seconds.
Dodge noted. <No left bank is recorded on the alleged FDR. Multiple witnesses describe a sharp right bank. Others describe a “wobble”. Check the NTSB animation 😉
All witnesses interviewed by CIT were asked. Not a one, whether interviewed by CIT, Hill or on record, who was in a position to view it, from multiple angles described it as being over the Navy Annex carpark to the south of Columbia Pike. Terry Morin was under the dam thing. Hemphill was inside the Annex. Sean Boger, directly opposite Hemphill corroborates Hemphill. At no point within Boger’s POV would the aircraft “appear” to be over the Annex unless it actually was.
Again with the wordplay. All witnesses interviewed by CIT were asked where they saw the aircraft.
Again, you fail. You can’t name one.
Got it.
Lloyd denies to this day, in spite of photographic evidence and an NBC interview in 2005, that his cab was on the bridge. This was after the NOC evidence came to light. Nobody else witnessed this event happening. Nor did anybody describe this spectacle which was allegedly there for all to see for a full eight minutes!
So no, you can’t name any witnesses to the lightpoles being struck other than a guy who contradicts himself every time he’s interviewed.
Thanks. I cut the rest of your speculative post.
How many described an SOC approach?
Hearing people, plural, saying this isn’t worth noting?
There are problems with Roberts’ testimony and those details need ironed out but he did say that he saw a second aircraft in South Parking. Not the C130. Not “Flight 77” Another “commercial aircraft”
The alleged “lightpole witnesses”
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51&view=findpost&p=1056353
The discredited forensics lab and multiple anomalies regarding the “remains”
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1833&view=findpost&p=2489615
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22270
The damage
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279
The entire witness list (read the summaries)
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863
>”A very good summary of the logic of CIT. It’s impossible for the aircraft to hit the building from NOC. End of investigation. ( Ignore all the evidence that it did hit the building and therefore didn’t fly NOC. ) The ‘First Proposal’ as HR1 put it.”~A. Wright
No Wright it is simply a good summary of logic, reason, and proportion.
And I will note the subtle trick you use in the above quote. You take OSS’ remark, “end of story” and change it to, “End of investigation,” which has an entirely meaning. “End of story” is a colloquial saying, a ‘quip’, where as, “End of investigation” is a formal pronouncement, meaning nothing further will be considered.
This technique you just used there is something I find suspicious Wright. I read into the latest posts you have made subtle refinements. I will posit that you have had assistance in producing these last two comments. I would propose a supervisor has intervened to sharpen up you flailing work. Or perhaps you reviewed some of the manuals on the subject of Cognitive Infiltration. One way or the other, you certainly put more effort into your new commentary than I have seen from you in some time. There is even a familiar flavor to it, something in the verbosity that rings of a certain el kabong type handle.
Truth and Shadows is a hard nut for you people to crack. Isn’t it Wright? You are facing some knowledgeable, intelligent, eloquent individuals here. I do suspect a professional team is working this site, and has been for some time. I don’t care how ‘good’ your people are at this bullshit game Wright. One simply cannot win a debate against the truth. Your quest is hopeless.
. . . . .
>”Did you handle the shredded remains of the bodies and put them in body bags? Did you do the DNA testing?”~A. Wright
This is a good question Wright. Did you do either of these things? Do you have proof from those who supposedly did so?
No you do not; as with every other aspect of the 9/11 case, there are no revealed chains of possession for any ‘evidence’.
\\][//
Willy
I noticed that too. I also noticed that within that very long post of his that not one detail of the “evidence” or witness names were produced bar a reference to Lloyde England.
If you reread his post, his “all of the evidence” has been reduced to the word of a proven corrupt forensics lab (sidenote: Dover Air Force base also handled the Jonestown corpses) and good old Lloyd “I was on flat land, nowhere near the bridge” England (and nobody saw that 30ft pole sticking out over his pristine hood).
For future reference, that’s what he means when he says “all the evidence” 😉
He tagged all sorts of “addendums” on to my original queries and statements because I refuse to go down the path where he feels comfortable. Speculation.
“I noticed that too. I also noticed that within that very long post of his that not one detail of the “evidence” or witness names were produced bar a reference to Lloyd England.”~OSS
Indeed, Wright continues his bombastic technique of ‘appearances’ to reason and logic, while simply offering rhetorical twaddle void of specific substance.
I noticed that he faked his way to answering the direct question put to him by Mr McKee as to what happened to the wings. “They were attached to the aircraft…” bla bla bla. His response gave no specific details, but only offered the same official narrative jabberwacky that we have heard for the last 13+ years.
I would posit that the readership here is just as bored with Wright’s standard bullshit as we are OSS.
As we both know, the truth hinges on ‘Trajectory’ – simple ballistics. These facts are clear and indisputable. And still Wright blathers on…and on…and on.
\\][//
Brilliant summation of that article from Neil Macdonald:
“The unspoken media-government arrangement is understandable, I suppose.
We must at least pretend there’s international law and fairness and basic rules, because it reassures us that we live in a world where raw power doesn’t ultimately rule.
But it’s all just gibberish; through the looking glass. We might as well be reporting that slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe.
Money and hard power count, and that’s that. The big players have it, and the smaller players play along. If we need the anaesthetic liquor of self-delusion to deal with it, well, drink up.”~Macdonald
\\][//
Sorry if this is reposted
The alleged “lightpole witnesses”
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51&view=findpost&p=1056353
The discredited forensics lab and multiple anomalies regarding the “remains”
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1833&view=findpost&p=2489615
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22270
The damage
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279
The entire witness list (read the summaries)
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863
Indeed OSS,
It is a simple fact that apologists for the official narrative haven’t a single example of a proper chain of custody for a piece of evidence. Not a single ID number for any of the aircraft asserted to be involved. No possession chain of the DNA. They have nothing but proclamations and empty assertions.
Cui Bono
Zionist-Neo-Conservative principals of PNAC provides Motive. The fact of the members coming to direct executive power with GWB provides Means and Opportunity. The covert MO of the National Security State has remained constant for more than a century, ie; “false flag” intelligence operations.
\\][//
CONSEQUENCES
You Mr Wright, face the same consequences as everyone else on this planet. You’re being an apologist for the Empire, is self defeating foolishness; the work of someone who does not recognize his own long term self interests.
It is of no matter which side of the phony divide of Left and Right paradigm you sit on, it is in not recognizing the monstrous nature of the system you support.
So do not dare take as a compliment the proposition that you are part of an organized Cognitive Disruption Team. It is not a compliment, but an indictment for collaboration with a criminal enterprise.
These current events are driven by the Corporatist State that you shill for. You should drop to your knees in utter shame, and pray forgiveness from whatever gods you pray to:
“Listening to U.S. President Barack Obama bang on this week about the importance of world opinion and obeying international law and respecting sovereignty and being on the right side of history, you had to wonder whether he didn’t have a little voice in his head whispering: “Really? Seriously? I’m actually saying this stuff?”
This is the commander-in-chief of a military that operates a prison camp on Cuban soil, against the explicit wishes of the Cuban government, and which regularly fires drone missiles into other countries, often killing innocent bystanders.
He is a president who ordered that CIA torturers would go unprosecuted, and leads a nation that has invaded other countries whenever it wished, regardless of what the rest of the world might think.”~Neil Macdonald
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/the-ukraine-crisis-through-the-whimsy-of-international-law-1.2559980
\\][//
“Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.” — Anonymous
\\][//
Cool, this page is open for business again.
Thanks Craig.
\\][//
I notice in this DVD by Mr. Mazzucco where he deals with the footage from the Pentagon from the two cameras at the entrance gate, (DVD 2 @18.30 ) they synchronize the two videos and then show ‘frame 23’ where he says that camera 2 doesn’t show the plane. They put a circle around an area where they say there isn’t a plane but just a little to the right of the ‘?’ is the nose of the plane. They point to the smoke trail and say this is the nose of the plane but the plane is off to the left, ahead of the smoke trail. It is shown in better quality in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00&feature=youtu.be
There is only one problem with this analysis Wright,
After watching this gate-cam video in it’s original form on another site several times, pausing it to look closely; one finds that the “blue streak” of this analysis is a part of the background of this shot, and is still in the frame as the explosion takes place. It is obviously not a Boeing as asserted by this video, but something in the background.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
I can’t agree there – I think it’s not too difficult to make out the profile of a plane there. It is not there in the preceeding frames, appears in one frame ahead of the smoke trail where it would be according to camera 1 and I can’t see it in the subsequent frames.
It is no surprise that you don’t agree Wright. You don’t see things that ARE there, so seeing things that AREN’T there would arise from the same deluded facilities you work with.
I suggest you study other presentations of this sequence, without the leading “analysis” provided in the one you posted.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
I think it’s safe to say you don’t want to see a plane there. I think it’s also safe to say most people would see a plane there – unless of course they didn’t want to.
Just as long as you feel ‘safe’ Wright, we wouldn’t want you having nightmares or any illegal thoughts. There is a blur in the video, and whether even that is authentic or not is up for grabs, as the time-stamp that is ALWAYS part of time lapse security video is a missing feature of this one.
It is rather like the so-called airport security videos that zoom in on and follow the alleged hijackers. Again the chain of evidence is not available and the “evidence” is suspect.
If this is the only straw you can grasp, it is not going to prevent your sinking…as “safe” as you may believe you are.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
“When people need to believe something, the facts matter very little. Reality can be twisted and bent into any shape needed, information discarded, contradictions ignored. Never underestimate peoples willingness to delude themselves.”
Look Wright,
This video you posted is obviously not the original video released in 2002. It is clearly enhanced. The question then arises, who did this enhancement? Where did this video come from after some twelve years?
Even the first release had evidence of video tampering in it. As I noted before there was no date/time stamp that is always part of a surveillance video. There is no shadow of the object supposedly streaking by in a blur. There is no shadows cast by the bright explosion.
And even in this video the explosion is the color of one caused by chemical explosives, ie; bombs – not jet fuel.
This is much too late a date to have something like this accepted at face value.
And finally Wright, that quote you have become so fond of is a double edged sword that cuts both ways.
\\][//
To expand upon my remarks above:
As I said, this is much too late a date to have something like this accepted at face value. It would be a very clever way of making-up a “Proof” of a Boeing hitting the Pentagon. And yet the fact remains that if a Boeing actually did hit the Pentagon, there would be many angles and views of this hit in numerous videos – all of which have been absconded by the authorities and hidden deep in the bowels of the national security state. So the central question is why this would be so. A reasonable answer is because there are no videos showing a Boeing hitting the Pentagon – because a Boeing did NOT hit the Pentagon.
And to be very clear about all of this; if a video is finally released showing a clear image of a Boeing hitting the Pentagon at this late date, that video as well should be seen as highly suspect. It goes against all the other evidence so far discovered, especially the witness testimony of a north path approach, and the total impossibility of that approach causing the damage trajectory that has been firmly established.
In my view the disinformation regime is playing yet another game in a long list of plays having to do with the events of 9/11.
\\][//
Yeah, it was all a big conspiracy.. The US government planned it for what had to have been years.. but they made one HUGE mistake in all their planning; . They randomly selected the most populated city in the country (this was a big mistake because in planning a great conspiracy, you have better success pulling it off the fewer eyes are focused on the event)