“NIST simulations omitted basic structural supports that would have made this girder failure impossible.”
By Craig McKee
They admit they ignored evidence, and they don’t care.
According to one of three new points released this week by the 9/11 Consensus Panel, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has dismissed the importance of architectural drawings for World Trade Center Building 7, accessed through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which prove that the claim that the building was brought down by office fires cannot be correct.
If NIST doesn’t correct its faulty technical analysis, it could find itself being sued by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (more on that below).
According to a press release from the Consensus Panel (co-founded by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth), their first new point deals with the computer simulations offered by NIST, “which purported to show that fire-induced thermal expansion caused a girder to be pushed off its seat at Column 79, thereby initiating a global collapse of the entire 47-story building at 5:21 in the afternoon.”
But the release goes on to state that the drawings show “that the NIST simulations omitted basic structural supports that would have made this girder failure impossible.”
From the Consensus point itself:
“Review of the released WTC 7 drawings showed that there were two serious structural feature omissions from the NIST analyses relevant to the NIST “collapse initiation” theory. They were:
1. Steel plate stiffeners that provided critical support for girder A2001.
2. Floor beams S3007, G3007, and K3007, which provided lateral support for beam G3005.
Analyses performed by independent engineers show that when the stiffeners and lateral support beams are included, NIST’s probable collapse sequence is impossible, because:
1. The girder flange for column 79 could not bend or fail with the stiffeners present.
2. Beam G3005 – which NIST claimed buckled from thermal expansion and led to the collapse of WTC 7 – could not have buckled if G3005’s omitted lateral support floor beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 were present.”
The conclusion of the point reads as follows:
“NIST’s claim that the collapse of WTC 7 was initiated when Girder A2001 was pushed off its seat at Column 79 is untenable.
With the alleged initiating event ruled out, all of NIST’s claims about subsequent structural failures must be considered baseless and invalid.”
Human rights attorney William F. Pepper, representing Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of the Inspector General in December 2013 reporting the omissions from the NIST report and calling for an independent engineering study. He followed this up in March 2014 by phone and received acknowledgment from NIST that it had omitted the stiffeners, but that they did not need to be considered.
Pepper is best known for having represented the family of Martin Luther King in a 1999 wrongful death suit against Lloyd Jowers and other unknown conspirators in the MLK assassination. The jury found Jowers responsible along with “governmental agencies.” Pepper also represents Sirhan Sirhan who was convicted of assassinating Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.
An article on the AE911Truth web site by Dennis McMahon and James McDowell goes into the details of efforts by Pepper and AE members Tony Szamboti and David Cole to press NIST to “produce a corrected analysis and report on the collapse of Building 7.”
Szamboti, a mechanical engineer who has just joined the 9/11 Consensus Panel, was told by NIST that its engineers did not agree with Pepper’s letter. This has led Szamboti to start work on a technical analysis of the “relevant structural elements” to show that NIST calculations are in error. Once this work is completed, the findings will likely be passed on to NIST in another letter from Pepper. If nothing is done at the point (as we can expect nothing will be), AE911Truth is already on record as saying that a lawsuit against NIST may follow.
WTC 7 steel was available
The second new Consensus point refutes the repeated claim by NIST that no steel was recovered from Building 7. NIST has used this claim to shut down all questions about what the steel might prove about what really caused the destruction of the building.
The Panel makes the point that if NIST’s explanation of a collapse due to “thermal expansion” were true, then examining the steel would have been extremely important in preventing future occurrences.
The Panel reports that the “best evidence” includes that fact that three scientists from the Worchester Polytechnic Institute wrote a letter entitled “An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel WTC Building 7”to a technical journal in 2001. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a report by the same three scientists in 2002 that examined the corrosion and thinning of WTC steel using as an example a beam that “appeared to be from WTC 7.” That it did come from Building 7 was confirmed by the lead author of the FEMA study in a 2008 BBC documentary.
A FOIA request yielded photographs of WTC 7 steel being examined by John Gross, the co-project leader on NIST’s Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis. And all this evidence is supported by media reports in the New York Times and the official publication of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
This 9/11 Consensus Panel point concludes:
“More than ample evidence shows that NIST’s claim – that no steel from WTC 7 was found – is false. By denying this evidence (which was even cited in one of NIST’s own reports), it could claim that there was no evidence that the building had been brought down by explosives.
By denying the availability of WTC 7 steel, moreover, NIST positioned itself to explain the collapse by resorting to a computer simulation into which variables could be inserted at will – given the fact that there was to be no peer review – and which has been shown to be false.”
Foreknowledge of ‘collapse’
The final new Consensus point addresses the considerable evidence that there was foreknowledge of the “collapse” of Building 7 both by authorities and the media.
It starts by pointing out that there have been two official stories about the WTC 7 destruction. One stated that the building was critically damaged by flying debris and that fires were fueled diesel fuel stored in the building. The second, in the form of the 2008 NIST report, stated that it was strictly office fires that led to the collapse and that this had resulted from an effect called “thermal expansion” that played a significant part in initiating a global collapse.
As the Consensus Panel points out, neither scenario fits the evidence. And certainly neither would explain the certainty that seemed to exist that the building would be coming down. Examples of this knowledge included officials on the scene (the fire chief, assistant chief, firefighters, and paramedics) and media (CNN and the BBC reported the collapse before it happened, while MSNBC reported that “several different officers” had said that Building 7 would be the next to come down).
So the Panel’s concludes:
“Neither Account 1 nor Account 2 of the collapse of WTC 7 can account for the certainty of many people on the scene that the building was going to collapse, the fact that some of them had this foreknowledge long in advance, and that two of the TV networks were able to announce the collapse prematurely. This foreknowledge, it would seem, must have come from people who intended to bring the building down.
This foreknowledge corroborates, therefore, the evidence and conclusions presented in previous Points (see Consensus Points WTC7-1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) that WTC 7 was brought down through a process of controlled demolition.”
This brings to 40 the number of points approved by the 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel so far.
If nothing else, “they” are consistent in having not a single report that can relied upon as the God’s honest truth at face value. Great article in bringing up this topic. //
I guess we can all agree on NIST, eh?
Yes Craig I think we can all agree on NIST as a scientific fraud.
However I don’t see that all agree on the proven facts of controlled demolition.
I have made it a point not to taunt nor give excuses to a certain entity that posts regularly in token response – but in much heavier doses for the agenda of character assassination.
I am changing my held-off position this one time, at the beginning of a thread, so that somethings can be gotten straight. And so that Mr McKee can be involved in getting them straight as well.
I have been advised to leave the blog Truth and Shadows, and go to play on Face Book, or go back to COTO again by Mister Señor, after being pursued relentlessly by the entity thread after thread for too many weeks, months, years.
I refuse to yield to the Señor entity on this matter. It is Mr McKee’s call, and I will do as he wishes if there is to be a change in my status here.
\\][//
PS: And while signing off, I am reminded that Mr Señor seems to think that logo is his for the taking. He had best go back to his pale attempt at being a copycat and use his double slashes.
The only two people who have any say over whether or not you leave Truth and Shadows are you and me. As far as I’m concerned, you’re fine.
Thank you Craig,
I cannot even imagine what would prompt me to leave. This is the best blog on the Internet and I am proud to be a part of it.
\\][//
Hi HR,
I didn’t want to disrupt this thread so I left a reply from the previous post (comments closed) on your blog about 8 hours ago. The comment was under moderation but just now I checked and it appears to have disappeared. Or maybe I haven’t navigated your blog correctly.
Alistair
Thank you Alistair,
The comment is there in the unpublished area. That particular thread has it’s one specific purpose, so I am not going to approve your comment there.
Thank you for your honest straightforward view.
\\][//
Al, see ‘Carnival’ for my reply… \\][//
“Szamboti, a mechanical engineer who has just joined the 9/11 Consensus Panel, was told by NIST that its engineers did not agree with Pepper’s letter.”
This certainly will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the fraudulent character of NIST in all of its 9/11 reports.
I have been familiar with this information accrued by independent investigators and scientists for quite awhile. It is clear to scientist and non-experts alike that this evidence is conclusive:
“Analyses performed by independent engineers show that when the stiffeners and lateral support beams are included, NIST’s probable collapse sequence is impossible, because:
1. The girder flange for column 79 could not bend or fail with the stiffeners present.
2. Beam G3005 – which NIST claimed buckled from thermal expansion and led to the collapse of WTC 7 – could not have buckled if G3005’s omitted lateral support floor beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 were present.”
The conclusion of the point reads as follows:
“NIST’s claim that the collapse of WTC 7 was initiated when Girder A2001 was pushed off its seat at Column 79 is untenable.”
It is also obvious, as the article goes on to point out that WTC 7 was taken down by classical explosive demolition. I have addressed that as well in my article on my own HR1blog:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
\\][//
Thanks Craig, this will be interesting to watch unfold.
Thanks for covering, Craig.
Are you still a member of the Consensus Panel Dennis?
If so you are one busy Truth advocate.
Whether or, I applaud all of the hard work you do.
\\][//
thanks, craig. yes, still active on the panel, and with the HRSI. it was writing for AE that was taking up too much “free” time so i let that go and am mostly just doing some editing for them now.
Dennis,
I enjoyed the article on Pepper for AE. Well written and informative.
I wish I could have a more positive take on where this will actually go. But despite my intuition that it will have no impact whatsoever on the system, at least the truth is being revealed here on the Internet. And even if the system slams the web down some day, there will be those who remember.
That seems to be how it goes throughout all of history; small portions of mankind that are capable of critical thinking and historical memory. The rest of the herd just chews its cud, gives up its meat and skin to the factory.
The beat goes on, “laddie daddie dah”.
\\][//
thanks, willy. i cannot disagree with your assessment of the physical world. i know (as adam r has indicated) that certain “9/11 activisms” may be a waste of time, but on another level (spiritual? energetic?), it’s important to stand up as best you can, and fight the good fight. that is what i had been “called on” TO DO, and i could not turn my back on that. practically speaking, i believe that the HIgh Rise Safety Initiative ( http://highrisesafetynyc.org/about/ ) is the 9/11 Truth Movement’s best and maybe last shot at having a true paradigm shift.
–d
Good article on Pepper.
I’m a retired career firefighter that worked for a medium size Midwest city FD and since I love fighting fires, for 18 of the 20 years I was on duty, I always signed up for the busier/busiest engine companies.
So, I’ve seen first hand fires from the inside, fighting the fire in homes, hi-rises, apartment complexes, businesses and industrial concerns and from the outside, the times I was Incident Commander and I’m here to tell you there’s no way in Hell that the fires in WTC 7 could’ve burned hot enough to distort, melt, bend or ‘thermally stress’ steel.
The fires in WTC 7 are called ‘content fires,’ the fires resulting from the buildings contents, like chairs, desks, papers, carpet, paint, etc. And all those combined don’t get anywhere near the heat stress point for steel.
Slowly but surely, the lies surrounding the 9/11 Inside Job are being exposed, which maybe why the world is so unsettled; the vicious, sick and twisted predators who launched that back-stabbing attack are getting nervous and are willing to do ANYTHING, including setting off a nuclear war, to avoid being arrested, tried and punished with a short walk up a flight of 13 steps to eternity.
Greg Bacon,
Thank you for your input here. It is great when someone with intimate expertise on these subjects make their presence felt.
I would imagine that many firefighters, ex and current know the same thing. Bucking the herd mentality is hard to do, especially for those who have a current job that could be put to jeopardy by speaking out.
Slowly the world turns, and eventually that which is scoffed at today will be seen as “obvious” common knowledge. It is that ‘eventuality’ that so frightens the “Powers that be” that never should have been and we’re damned that they are. “The Samson Option” may be the public final position of Israel, but it is the covert final option for all of the figures running the burlesque known as the New World Order.
The past is always in question, the future never clear. So onward into the mystery of the Time/Space Continuum.
\\][//
@Greg Bacon
I have read the accounts of the firefighters and firechiefs who were on the scene at the WTC on Sept. 11th and they were looking at WTC 7 and concluded that it was damaged and that it wasn’t worth risking more lives to try and save it. They concluded that it was going to collapse within the following few hours and as they judged it was getting closer to collapse they moved everyone back from the building and created a collapse cordon around it to wait for it to fall. Would you have sent firefighters into the building that day or allowed people to work near it ?
If you’ve read transcripts from firefighters in WTC 7, then please provide a link so I can read the same.
I’ve read transcripts from NYFD FF’s in WTC 1 and 2, but not 7.
The only thing I’ve seen about WTC 7 is ‘Lucky’ Larry Silverstein saying he had talked to the FD and they said they were going to ‘pull’ the building due to it getting ready to crash.
But I haven’t seen anything from actual firefighters about WTC 7.
BTW, fire departments don’t have the training, the knowledge, the experience or equipment to ‘pull’ buildings, we always call in the Big Boys of construction and let them do that work.
Oops, forgot to add that the fire crews in the ‘Twins’ radio traffic was that they had extinguished the fires and were going to start emergency medical care for the survivors.
If the inside commander radioed that, it meant that the building was stable and safe for working, otherwise they would of started dragging people out of there instead of working on them in place.
Then, BOOM, their whole world came crashing down.
Here’s more. THERE WERE NO FIREFIGHTERS IN BUILDING 7 DUE TO LACK OF WATER:
According to Chapter 5 of FEMA’s Building Performance Study , firefighters were never in the building: “Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.”
•Silverstein’s statement implies a close temporal proximity between “that decision to pull” and “watch[ing] the building collapse,” giving no time for the fires to become more severe and do what fires have never before done: cause the total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html
And just adding to your point Mr Bacon,
It takes quite a bit of time to wire a building for an emplosive demolition. And they certainly could not have performed this work during the emergency on 9/11. Which means of course that the building had been set-up with explosive charges prior to 9/11.
Preplanning in secret is called “conspiracy” — Look up RICO, anyone who claims that conspiracy is a theory. These RICO laws are on the books because criminal conspiracies are as Amerikan as snapple pie.
\\][//
“Amerikan as snapple pie.” Love it!
Deputy Firechief Hayden interview with Firehouse Magazine:
Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and thats probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didnt make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
——————–
Officer Boyle interview with Firehouse Magazine:
Boyle:A little north of Vesey I said, well go down, lets see whats going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see whats going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didnt look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didnt look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, were going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didnt look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasnt really keen on the idea. Then this other officer Im standing next to said, that building doesnt look straight. So Im standing there. Im looking at the building. It didnt look right, but, well, well go in, well see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobodys going into 7, theres creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I
guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, well head back to the command post.
“There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there.”
This is a central point. He is saying “scattered” fires, not a raging inferno.
If that area were the cause of the “collapse” the building would have toppled in that direction, physics demands it. And at any rate there are blatant and obvious squibs running up the building in the video evidence. The building came straight down. There is other witness testimony describing an audible count off.
I have scores of witness testimonies on my blog addressing this, and what Wright is presenting here is cherry picked examples to bolster a case that is simply cut and dried settled as far as accounting for ALL the evidence.
Enough of us here already are intimately familiar with this body of evidence, and there is no use trying to convince Wrights closed and biased mind.
If he wants to review the evidence he can ask for the URLs to my blog.
\\][//
Another thing that Wright avoids by spin is there is no indication in this testimony that there were any firefighters in the building itself. They were across the street at the nearest. So this testimony is from a POV from the outside of the building. Even NIST details a wandering fire that never reached blaze temperatures.
The NIST claim relies on the differential between the concrete and the steel, not high temperatures. And this differential is what is found to be absurd in the NIST analysis. A fire at the base of the column suggested by NIST as the failing support would necessarily heated both the steel and the concrete simultaneously – NIST tweaked the modelling in their computer simulation, a blatant fraudulent action, one that can be gleaned by the text of the report itself.
NIST pulled the same fraudulent tricks in the models of the towers as well. As can be found in detail in Professor Jones’ paper “Why Indeed Did the Towers Collapse”, a PDF easily found at: journalof911studies.com/articles.html
\\][//
If Wright was paying attention to the article, he would see that it is exactly this critical evidence that is addressed in the piece and the adjoining leads therein.
\\][//
You know I have very mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand it is well written and informative as Craigs articles always are but on the other hand it involves the consensus panel which always seems to make me cringe. On one hand I am glad the consensus panel is doing something but on the other hand I see what they are doing as an extremely slow laborious process which in the end will only state the obvious. The consensus panel itself is little more than an appeal to authority logical fallacy put into practice.
First of all it is OBVIOUS that NIST lied up and down, side to side, and backward and forward. It is OBVIOUS so why is the consensus panel playing this game of doing this painstaking analysis and lengthy back and forth with NIST only to be stone walled AGAIN! It is a complete waste of time! They will simply refuse to respond and if they are eventually forced to respond after a LONG and tiring fight on our part they will simply DENY DENY DENY! Why is anyone still playing this game of pretending the government is going to come clean if we put enough pressure on them? THEY WILL NEVER COME CLEAN!!! Get it through your heads! THERE WILL NEVER BE A LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION OR DISCLOSURE OF THE TRUTH FROM THE GOVERNMENT! NEVER!!! EVER!!!
This is a complete waste of time and the more I think about it the more I wonder if that hasn’t been the point all along! I am sorry folks but I am going to let it fly right here and right now! The consensus panel has always bothered me but I could not put my finger on why at first. The conference call with Elizabeth Woodworth clarified for me what the issue really is. It is that the truth within the consensus panel at least has been reduced to a popularity contest. Within that structure people like David Chandler and one or two others can turn the entire panels focus away from damning evidence such as the SOC pentagon evidence. That doesn’t sit well with me AT ALL.
The other issue with the panel is that even if cowardly pentagon disinformationists like Chandler were not intentionally sabotaging the pentagon evidence and it was being presented by the panel according to its real importance the panel itself is still an appeal to authority logical fallacy to begin with. What the panel is really saying is these are the people with college degree’s and letters after their names and therefore their research and opinions are worth more than the dedicated researchers like Ranke, Marquis, and countless others who do not have letters after their name! That too does not sit well with me and I can tell you here and now that I myself have more knowledge about 9/11 than most of the panelists involved a lot more. I would not presume to speak on behalf of the truth movement and you know what? they shouldn’t either!
From my perspective the consensus panel is an attempt to centralize leadership in an “elite” clique of “truthers” (those with degrees) and render irrelevant the research and opinions of the rest of us. It is kind of the Beverly Hills country club of the truth movement. In the consensus panels world view if it hasn’t been approved by them (the truth movement government or NWO if you like) then it isn’t a fact or it isn’t important. Screw that crap, I do not agree and I will not go along to get along! The consensus panel is bogus, its foundation is cracked, and it is NOT the leadership we are looking for.
How smart or effective can the panel be if they are still in 2014 trying to reason with and get a meaningful response from the government that did 9/11 and attempted and is still attempting to cover it up to this very day?
How worth while can the panel be if they ignore what is perhaps the most damning evidence of all, the staged crime scene at the pentagon?
In my estimation the consensus panel isn’t worth a wooden nickel and all this effort directed at NIST is a monumental waste of time. NIST like the rest of the guilty as hell government and whore media is just going to spit in their face.
Here I will save the panel the damn trouble and write NIST’s response myself.
NIST has reviewed the materials you sent to us related to WTC 7 and found no basis in those materials for us to doubt our original conclusions. We therefore will not be re-opening our investigation. Thank you for your letter.
Sincerely,
Nisty Nisterson
PR Flunkie
NIST
1-555-YDY-FOFF
addresswedontread@nist.gov
Great comment Mr Ruff, I can’t help but agree with every word you wrote.
I can’t add a thing to it, right on.
\\][//
Sorry folks but it is time we all grow the hell up and face the truth of our situation. The truth is the arch criminal syndicate that executed the 9/11 false flag operation has seized control of the United States government and probably several other governments. We are not going to get any justice for 9/11 until we face that ugly reality and seize back control of our world. Ugly? Yes! True? Yes!
As we know from the comments by the comedy routine on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper, Emily Bazelon; that the MLK assassination is mentioned as one of those “wacky conspiracy theories'”, despite the fact that our own William Pepper proved that Martin was murdered by the state.
The truth simply doesn’t matter in a society enchanted by the Public Relations Regime. The number of people who know, or even care that it is a court proven fact that Martin Luther King Jr was killed by a deep state conspiracy is minuscule. So small as to have no practical bearing on policy at all. All the system has to do is hand-wave the truth and it magically disappears.
I just don’t see ‘human nature’ changing anytime soon. Homo Vishnu Ignoramus is a herd animal.
\\][//
adam r,
thanks for your honesty and directness. i very much understand and can relate to your wholly negative feelings and assessments, but if i had such a defeatist attitude, i’d go on permanent holiday from 9/11 (and other) truth(s). i mean, why bother trying to change the world if you can’t? but that’s me. you are you. whatever is right for the individual, no? “you know we’re all doing what we can.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEKhl1-G7Jo
you say, in an uncharacteristically non-defeatist way, “We are not going to get any justice for 9/11 until we face that ugly reality and seize back control of our world.” ok…how? “we’d all love to see the plan.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEKhl1-G7Jo
–d
“Hell is empty, the devils are here”~Shakespeare
\\][//
Dennis I am not a defeatist at all quite the contrary in fact. I just believe in addressing the actual problem rather than trying to cajole the perps into investigating themselves. I see that as a fools errand. What is NOT a fools errand in my humble opinion is going right for the jugular of the system itself. It is the system we have which gave us 9/11 and the USS Liberty and and and…. The system itself is the problem not any lack of evidence on our part. We have enough evidence to prove inside job for ten trials and we could use different evidence sets for each trial. The problem is we do not have a legitimate court to try the case BECAUSE we do not have a legitimate government BECAUSE our government is owned and controlled by corporations. That is the problem. We can solve the real problem if we face up to the real problem. We can solve nothing if we follow the example of the consensus panel and beg and plead with the illegitimate government who executed 9/11 to investigate themselves and I guess arrest themselves at some point. They are just laughing at that.
I am an optimist Dennis I think the people of the world are ready and able to throw off these tyrannical illegitimate regimes and replace them with something better, in our case a legitimate Constitutional republic as the Constitution originally intended. When that happens we have a chance for 9/11 justice.
How do we do it you ask? Well we grow a pair and initiate a hard core tax revolt and stick to our guns, hold our ground, and starve the whole rotten to the core system out of existence. Once the current scoundrels are ousted we elect all new leadership who are forced to strictly adhere to the Constitution and forced by mandate to eliminate “corporations” altogether because the corporate entity itself is the real problem since corporations are the real government. All a corporation is is a legal shield for people to do bad things and avoid personal accountability for their actions. Corporations are psychopaths who serve only one function… profit! A corporation will do anything up to and including buying politicians to achieve profits. The corporations own our government and it serves them exclusively so for all intents and purposes the corporations are the government. The agents of corporations are corporations themselves called lobbying firms. Take away their legal shield for open blatant bribery and racketeering and they disappear overnight. Eliminate the corporation and take back our whole world. Now we can still have organizations which make things, produce goods, build buildings etc BUT we remove the legal shield of the corporation so that the owners and controllers of the organizations become personally responsible for what their organization does. The buck stops with the owner. Can you imagine the major stock holders of Monsanto discovering that they are going to be held personally responsible for all the damage their GMO crops have done? Can you envision how quickly they would dump their Monsanto stock if they were to be held personally responsible for all the bribery, extortion, and murder their agents have done? The corporate shield is the only reason they get away with owning our government. Take away their shield and the whole system will change literally overnight.
Radical enough for you? Well in my view that is what is necessary at this point for humanity to have any hope of a decent and wonderful world.
adam r,
thank you for your considered response. i would agree that “trying to cajole the perps into investigating themselves” may be a fool’s errand, and i would say that trying to get NIST to reinvestigate itself by court order or otherwise falls into this category. in contrast, the High Rise Safety Initiative (http://highrisesafetynyc.org/ )—which would have the NYC Dept of Bldgs do the investigating—does not fall into the “fool’s errand” category, as the NYC Dept of Bldgs was not among “the perps.” the hope is that the perpetrators’ tentacles did not and will not reach down into the NYC Dept of Bldgs. only one way to find out, in my view, is for the voters of NYC to demand and get an investigation into the “collapse” of Building 7, and see what happens. and film things along the way, as per your suggestion (thanks again), to create an authentic history.
re: “What is NOT a fools errand in my humble opinion is going right for the jugular of the system itself… I think the people of the world are ready and able to throw off these tyrannical illegitimate regimes and replace them with something better, in our case a legitimate Constitutional republic as the Constitution originally intended. When that happens we have a chance for 9/11 justice [by initiating] a hard core tax revolt and stick to our guns, hold our ground, and starve the whole rotten to the core system out of existence.” sorry, but i think you are dreaming. i don’t see the hypnotized masses as EVER coming out of their illusions and doing anything along the lines you propose. how do you plan to (A) wake them up, and (B) motivate them to risk not only losing all of what they have, but imprisonment as well? who will be the leader(s) of this effort? what will the organization look like? what is THE PLAN? please provide THE DETAILS.
re: “Once the current scoundrels are ousted we elect all new leadership who are forced to strictly adhere to the Constitution and forced by mandate to eliminate “corporations” altogether because the corporate entity itself is the real problem since corporations are the real government.” i agree that we live in a world of corporate fascism, and that corporations need to at least be reigned in. according to john perkins, there was a time when corporations were required to act in the public good (i have not done research to confirm this, but trust perkins on that point). he suggests working within the system to bring back that requirement, which is an idea less dreamlike than yours but nevertheless a tremendous longshot. you suggest eliminating the corporate power structure entirely, and if we had a magic wand and could make that happen, sure, let’s give it a wave. but your revolutionary scenario? well, again, i just don’t see that happening. however, if you get something started, and there is a way to contribute to the effort, do let me know, and i will consider participating. just please provide THE DETAILS.
The details:
I estimate the revolution I have in mind will require participation by roughly 5% of the population. That amount or less won the revolutionary war so I am very comfortable saying that 5% of the people can accomplish the whole thing today even if no one else helps or gets involved. It is a pipe dream to think everyone will participate but the good news is that I am not a pipe dreamer. 1 out of 20 people is all that is needed. So with that out of the way lets move on to what we actually do to bring down this system which gave us 9/11.
1. Strictly non violent non cooperation is the essence of this plan. Its goal is to restore the USA to a Constitutional republic free of the corrupting influences of corporations. http://books.google.com/books/about/Give_Me_Liberty.html?id=CBBxxcsDquAC and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6zQO7JytzQ
2. We refuse to file tax returns and we stop all money being taken out of our checks which we can insist upon with our employers. http://www.truth-attack.com/jml/index.php
3. We start our own currency and use it to do business amongst ourselves. We phase out the dollar. http://www.berkshares.org/whatareberkshares.htm
4. We stand our ground and defend ourselves by banding together and by fighting (non violently) like cornered badgers every single move the government makes to try and attach our money or take away our property or liberty. http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/07/eddie-craigs-tao-of-law-website.html
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHfyPylVL8
If it gets to the point where the government sends men to take our lives or liberty or both we defend ourselves with whatever force is necessary to stop them. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment
5. We refuse to cooperate with corporate governance by refusing to deal with all corporations possible and instead we form organizations that we are responsible for to supply our needs. We buy, sell, and trade within our own organizations wherever possible to do so. We boycott the most powerful corporations (the banks) and form our own banks which we manage ourselves and conduct our business with and which use our currency. When we have no choice but to do business with a corporation we purposely choose the smallest one that can fill the need we have thereby starving out the largest most powerful corporations.
6. We find creative ways to bring down this corporate fascist regime. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IsebbshvcI
More to come later.
Adam R,
Sounds like a plan!
I think that Adam Ruff presents some viable “details” as a plan for reestablishing constitutional government.
However, there is a matter of the contingency plans of our opponent, the military state that is the target of such plans of true patriots of Liberty.
The Maximum Security State is certainly not going to sit back twiddling its thumbs when some of these measure that Adam propose begin to have any real effect. And hoping for a peaceful resolution is in my humble opinion, Pie In The Sky.
No, at the first sign of success of any peaceful measures to defeat them there will be the well worn ‘Provocation’ – violence by the state framed as a defense by the state. Escalation will only end with full on military oppression; everything we know they have planned already.
Any breakdown in communication amongst the Patriots will be taken advantage of to insert 5th column agitators and more provocation, seemingly by our own side.
This is not an imaginary template I am proposing here, it is known by historical example.
This is not to dissuade those who will defy the state in all measure they are capable of, it is simply what I feel is a valid assessment of what we have to look forward to. The oppression is planned one way or another. In that sense there is nothing to loose. But there is everything to loose if we underestimate the enemy.
\\][//
I think you are spot on accurate with your assessment here HR1 and I have a response to it. I expect it, I plan for it, I am ready for it, and I already know why and how their attempts to insert provocateurs and create a scenario where they are seen as the victim rather than the aggressor will fail. It will fail for two reasons.
1. Since this organization of people will as a condition of membership in the group have to agree to a strict non violent policy, anyone who does commit violence will be instantly exposed as a provocateur who is not a legitimate member of the group. This policy will be front and center as the cornerstone principle of this movement. Simply stated anyone who commits offensive violence is not a member of this movement and will be publicly disavowed by the entire group and exposed if possible as a provocateur. Furthermore to gain membership into this group you must go on the record stating your personal commitment to non violence. The only exception to this would be when “they” the government try to harm you or your loved ones at which point you can and should use your 2nd amendment right to defend yourself.
2. Attempted provocations will swell our membership as will any violence directed at us from the government. In fact many of their own enforcers are already on our side and many more will defect when they attempt their operation Gladio scenarios with us. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ we know their modus operandi front to back. In fact the recent spate of shootings and attempted bombings where “patriots” are being blamed is another operation Gladio or Northwoods happening right now in front of our eyes. This is a sign of the systems desperation and vulnerability. They are on their way out already I say we help them find the door and slam it shut as they exit.
So on the public record I Adam Ruff swear on oath that I will never commit any act of offensive violence on anyone for any reason. I further swear that I will not condone or assist any other person or group who does commit any act of offensive violence. I swear this on my life and sacred honor.
Any act of offensive violence blamed on me is a fraud and should be investigated and exposed as such.
The only scenario where I will use force is when I or my loved ones are being violently attacked in which case I will exercise my 2nd amendment right to bear arms and defend myself and loved ones.
Good response Mr Ruff!
I appreciate your well constructed tactical approach. I can very well mitigate many of the problems coming in a ‘street near ‘ … well,all of us.
-“The only scenario where I will use force is when I or my loved ones are being violently attacked in which case I will exercise my 2nd amendment right to bear arms and defend myself and loved ones.”
I’ll sign on to that for sure!!
\\][//
good luck with your endeavor, adam r.
Dear Mr. RuffAdam,
Although you are skipping my comments, I will still commend you on your posting above. Very well thought-out, an area where you’ve hit your stride. Definitely, food for thought and worthy of being saved. Kudos.
//
[THE WHO]
We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that’s all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
No, no!
I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
\\][//
yeah, willy, i was thinking of that song when i was writing. thanks for the lyrics…i didn’t know all of them…good to see.
this lyric especially, which i never knew. “For I know that the hypnotized never lie.” very insightful!
in that era, i was in a band that did “won’t get fooled again.” i knew the overall tone but never paid too much attention to the words unless they jumped out at me. i was too busy trying to copy keith moon.
A timely re-publishing of the Who’s lyrics that makes a refreshing break to the discussion. I enjoyed the memory flashback, a song that was overplayed on the radio stations of cars as well as the high school lunch areas, weight-lifting rooms, etc. of my day.
//
Instead of \\, Señor should use, /\, which represents a dunce hat quite nicely.
\\][//
senor el once,
re: “A timely re-publishing of the Who’s lyrics that makes a refreshing break to the discussion.” i think it’s more an accurate assessment of our plight than an actual break from the discussion.
–d
I was surprised that Craig is so comfortable with the Consensus Panel in this article, given his critical attitude earlier. There is not a whiff of concern as to its underlying project/purpose. Mostly it is a news report that almost anyone on the Panel itself might have authored.
As to the MLK, Jr. trial that Pepper litigated, I have met well-informed people who did not know about it. That tells us a lot about how information is controlled here, even when the full force of the legal system is brought into action and a jury’s unanimous conclusion is rendered under constitutional procedures.
Paul,
I agree with a certain aspect with what you say here in your comment. But I also agree with Mr McKee, Dennis, and others that any actions that can be taken, should indeed be taken, if for no other benefit than the public record.
Looking at it from a “different strokes for different folks” POV, I am very happy to see 9/11 Truth activity in areas that I could not put my own efforts into. Full Spectrum Defiance against the state, everyone who is awake and lucid to the threat of Full Spectrum Dominance has their own personal task that they alone will determine.
\\][//
Adam R.,
I totally understand where you are coming from. As you know from what I’ve written in the past, I share your reservations and your frustration. The Panel will always have a gaping hole where the evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon should be. The addition of Jonathan Cole and the conversion of Dwain Deets pretty much sealed that deal. It only takes four members to vote against any point, and it dies. With plane-impact defender David Chandler on board, this means that any Pentagon point showing no impact must be approved unanimously by the other 21 members – an extremely tall order.
And this assumes that the point is ever presented in the first place. It is up to David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth to come to terms with this if they don’t want it to remain as the Panel’s most visible failing. Even Massimo Mazzucco’s film, which avoided CIT and the North of Citgo evidence, made it crystal clear that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon.
I want to make a point about demanding action from the government. You’re right that we will be ignored no matter how many times we ask for a new investigation. However, I think initiatives that attempt to force action – or at least to draw attention to the fact that the government is doing all it can to avoid taking action – can be useful. If AE sues NIST, that could be very interesting. Will the press take notice? Maybe not, but I believe that a multi-faceted approach is the only way to gain any ground. That includes things like the High-Rise Safety Initiative, complaints against media, forming political parties, handing out “fake” brochures at the bogus 9/11 museum, etc.
For these reasons I’m very hesitant to label something a waste of time. Of course, most in the movement know that NIST’s “evidence” is lies, but accumulating well-documented points that show this is not such a bad thing. I do think it’s essential that we treat the Consensus Panel as just one way to push the fight forward – it shouldn’t be considered to have created “definitive” evidence that the 9/11 official story is a pack of lies. And it shouldn’t be considered to be the “leader” of the movement. But we have to find any way possible to preach beyond the choir.
So I very cautiously feel that the addition of these three new points – as far as they go – and the efforts of AE through William Pepper are positive steps and worth doing. But the situation has to be watched closely.
“Even Massimo Mazzucco’s film, which avoided CIT and the North of Citgo evidence, made it crystal clear that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon.”
Indeed, the disinfo trio of Frank Legge, John Wyndham and David Chandler, as recently as this past October, wrote a “joint letter” to Mazzucco, though based on the writing style I’d say 99-100% of it was written by Legge; it reeks of his octogenarian flatulence.
http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Mazzucco_letter_Oct2013.pdf
They lament that he made the case for the non-impact, and how unfortunate it is that Mazzucco hadn’t been alerted to the excellent academic papers of Dr. Frank Legge, Ph.D. BEFORE putting out his film. Oh, if only he had, he would have been enlightened to the fact that indeed the plane DID hit!!! And of course, this academic paper from the Ph.D. professor cites the amazing work of such RESPONSIBLE truthers as Vic Ashley and Arabesque.
In conclusion, rather than point out here the many other problems with the film’s Pentagon
segment, we offer to work with you to bring the Pentagon segment into a state where it can
receive the respect of other scientists. We invite your thoughtful response.
Sincerely yours,
David Chandler, B.S. (Physics), MS (Mathematics) Email: davidchaler@gmail.com
Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) Email: flegge@iinet.net.au
John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics) Email: jcwyndham@myfairpoint.net
Anyway, my curiosity was piqued as far as what the joint letter to Mazzucco might have had on him, so I wrote Mazzucco, asking him what he thought of the people/arguments claiming that AA77 (or at least a large jetliner) did hit. He wrote a brief reply, partly saying he doesn’t want to talk about this because he’s burned out on 9/11. But he did answer my question:
Yes, Legge wrote to me, but I find his arguments unsustainable. The very arabesque list of witnesses is unsourced, thus essentially worthless.
Sorry, “propaganda team,” you failed to score one with Mazzucco like you did with Gage.
Thank you Mr Syed for that report,
So glad to see Mazzucco isn’t the naive chump swayed by clickish bullshit as some are.
If we could get Legge, or any of his “Scientific People”* to debate here, they would soon find themselves in the potholes of their battered street and filled in with the pavement of real factual data.
[* See: STARS MY DESTINATION – Alfred Bester for “scientific people”]
\\][//
Craig The whole premise of this effort from the consensus panel is based on the FALSE idea that the present government can be pressured or convinced somehow to come clean about 9/11 or have a legitimate investigation or trial. It is a false premise and therefore can only fail.
Now if the point of doing this were to expose the “government” for what it really is then it might have a chance of actually accomplishing something. What it could accomplish under that scenario is education of the ignorant as to what their government really is. That kind of education could prove very useful in the battle to come where humans take back control of their world.
If the goal is to get a trial or an investigation or an admission of guilt then it is a fools errand truly.
Paul,
I just saw your comment after posting my own response to Adam R. I hope this response makes it clear that my position on the Consensus Panel has not changed at all. Yes, the article is pretty much written as a straight news story, but I this is something I have always done from time to time. And even a straight news story can provoke a useful discussion.
Your point about the MLK lawsuit being ignored by the media is well taken. But does that mean we shouldn’t attempt things like this? It does beg the question: what should we be doing?
There comes a point and a time when one must walk away from everything. This lie, 9/11, is so big, so gargantuan in terms of how it has affected everything and everyone on this planet in absolutely every way that even the most hardcore “truthers” still have a hard time putting it all into perspective.
There’s so much evidence that the official story is a monstrous lie that it’s really beyond description, beyond words and certainly – thirteen years on – beyond debate. The debate is over. Period. End of story. Pet theories aside on what actually happened that day, the time has come to absolutely dismiss anyone that seeks to debate the validity of the lunatical ‘official’ story. Just walk away, refuse to debate it, refuse to discuss it. Laugh at them, and then walk away. Otherwise, like some have correctly alluded to above, we will continually be led around by the nose, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, until we all wake up on the 50th anniversary of 9/11 just like we all recently had with the 50th anniversary of the JFK murder, wondering how we got here 50 years later. Except this time we will have woken up on a full-fledged prison planet.
No more investigations, no more theories, no more discussions, no more debates, no more insanity. Just walk away. Centuries ago brilliant men and women walked the earth, at a time when critical thinking, common sense and intelligence were still the norm. The simple utterance of their names still gives many the chills. DaVinci, Tesla, et. al. They all must be rolling over in their graves wondering how the hell civilization got to where it is today, including how it is possible for any sane individual to still, some thirteen years on, be debating, discussing and wondering about a truth so evident that it simply boggles the mind that it would still not yet be defined as truth.
Gary,
I read your very sound reasoning, but come to an opposite conclusion.
I think we should all stay engaged. Where shall we walk away too?
\\][//
A bit of a long response here my friend: Engaged, yes. But in a different way. Of course, I recognize that what I am about to say won’t work for nor perhaps even resonate with many. However, I also suspect that business as usual won’t work at all. As Einstein said, the definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Did it work with the investigation into JFK? RFK? MLK? ………… After those fifty years have gone by, now thirteen years later, here we go again, this time it’s 9/11 as we’re chasing the minutia of the minutia of the minutia, down dozens if not hundreds of rabbit holes. The pentagon. Building 7. WTC. Thermite. Nukes. Exotic weapons. israel. The neo-cons. pnac. Etc. on and on forever. . .
Everything that’s been done so far by the movement, by men and women of integrity and honor, is beautiful and was/is needed. And I suspect it will continue on irrespective of what one man says. Personally speaking though, I’ve recently taken a step back and have been wondering how we got here – how this spell that’s been cast on humanity has been able to keep its hold after so many years. It’s unreal. It’s surreal. It’s like we’ve been living in an alternate reality for thirteen years now.
Never before in the history of humanity has there been so much information and truth readily available at the whim for free for everyone (the internet) yet never before has society at large been so ignorant/not interested/too busy, etc. for the truth. So will “normal” truth activities break the spell after all these years? Perhaps, but I don’t think so. Not to mention that every new false flag that takes place moves the goal posts back another few yards, 9/11 truth a bit further away and resolution ever more out of reach.
So, getting back to what I alluded to with “walking away” , , , it really just means engaging in a different way (or perhaps in parallel with traditional truth dissemination efforts). Although as I mentioned, I recognize it will be really difficult for most to grab on to as it means the end of their normal and sane (a.k.a. abnormal and insane) lives and routines. Although in truth haven’t our “normal and sane” lives been over for a long time now? Yet we carry on day to day as if everything is normal. What I would suggest is that outside of working for a living in order to support yourself and your family (i.e. pay the bills), stop doing “normal” things. Stop going to the movies. Stop going to dinner parties (where truth is not ‘allowed’). Stop going to Disneyworld. Stop going to the ballgame. Occupy all that time with truth instead. Let it become the new normal. Break the spell. After all, if we’re truly honest with ourselves, does anything else really matter at this point?
At first, most in the hive will look at you like your nuts (but don’t they already anyway?). This is certain. But nuts? Isn’t it nuts to carry on with our normal lives 91% of the time, while 9% of the time we’re puttiing our energy towards truth (9/11 and all the rest of it)? Isn’t it nuts to have to wonder how you’re going to uniquely structure your next conversation every time you meet someone new at the office, on the street, at the bar, as you don’t want to put them off with, er, the truth? Isnt’ it nuts to have to pretend with certain people, but be able to speak truth with others? Millions of innocent souls have been slaughtered around the world, a multi-billion dollar police state has been erected, trillions have been stolen from us and . . it’s all been based on one monumental lie – all a direct result of 9/11.
And all this and more will assuredly continue in the future if we keep carrying on and pretending with our ‘normal lives’. There is no precedent for this, no road map, and it’s not easy to do. I realize this. But living our lives knee deep in cognitive dissonace for years to come, continuing to act as if everything is normal is insanity.
To use the words of the, er, elite, think of it as a “breakaway civilization”, except instead of the breakaway civilization being comprised of a few thousand cowardly, empathetic-less psychopathic lunatics who will not stop destroying the planet and our lives until they are stopped, it will be made up of millions of courageous men and women of integrity and honor, those who, against all the odds, were willing to put it all on the line to create a new world for future generations.
Ahhh…yes Gary,
I do see what you mean by all that. And I have actually done that sort of walking away. Become the sort of Socrates gadfly that makes “normal people” uncomfortable. Do not attend to the popular rituals of the culture and all that.
Of course this is not something that began 13 years ago, although more in earnest now, but began much earlier in my own life. Recognizing that this society is pathological dawns on some of us at differing stages. 911 being a blatant wake-up call is now obvious to a lot more of us.
I won’t say much more in this comment other than to say, that I think I can relate to what you are saying.
Thank you for your well constructed reply, \\][//
I commend you for having the wherewithal to walk away, to walk the walk. It’s not easy, in fact it’s damn hard at first. But it’s the only way, and we’re all in this together. And once you begin to walk the walk, it becomes as effortless as breathing.
I’d also add that with all that free time now freed up – the time that used to be put towards hobbies and the like that support the system, in addition to truth efforts, we can begin to plant gardens, get off the grid, build community, talk to our neighbors – the same ones we’ve all forgotten about for years now, as we were busy becoming “successful” robots, ears-eyes-and lips shut, while simultaneously enslaving ourselves to the same system that pulled off 9/11 as we slept. . . In other words, we can begin to build that more beautiful world for our progeny. I cannot think of a higher calling.
Regarding 9/11, one thing is absolutely certain. As Arthur Schopenhauer once said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” In my mind, it’s not important that we see the manifestation of that third stage of 9/11 in our lifetime, only that we were here doing what needed to be done so that one day in the future history will record that the truth did indeed become “self-evident” to the world.
Another fine comment Gary, I agree wholeheartedly. I see signs we could be on our way.
\\][//
@Gary
If you are familiar with those who post on this forum you won’t be expecting a response from me similar to that of others here – and you won’t be disappointed. I can agree with some of the things you say but here when I see people so convinced about this ‘inside job’ view of 9/11 I find it hard to take too seriously their take on other matters, even if I agree with them, especially if it is presented with this ‘I thank the Lord that I am not like other men’ meme. If other people are unconvinced by what you tell them about 9/11 it should maybe give you hint that what you are saying may not be true. I find people don’t have much difficulty believing things if they are presented with convincing evidence. It is an indication that they find it convincing. When they are not convinced it could be because it is not convincing. If a salesman finds it difficult to sell something he would be unwise to conclude that it is either because he is just not a good enough salesman or that there is something wrong with the people he is trying to sell it to. He should ask if there might be something wrong with what he is trying to sell to them.
The quote from Schopenhauer “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” seems to be taken by some people to mean ‘If what I say is ridiculed it must be true’.
While I think Einstein was a genius the quote “The definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” – isn’t that the definition of practicing something? A kid scratching away on a violin every day may drive their parents insane but may some day be playing at Carnegie Hall.
When I look at this 9/11 truth movement the thing that comes to mind is one of Aesop’s fables
‘ The Boy who cried Wolf’.
—————————————
There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, “Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!”
The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.
“Don’t cry ‘wolf’, shepherd boy,” said the villagers, “when there’s no wolf!” They went grumbling back down the hill.
Later, the boy sang out again, “Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!” To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.
When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, “Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don’t cry ‘wolf’ when there is NO wolf!”
But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.
Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, “Wolf! Wolf!”
But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn’t come.
At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn’t returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.
“There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, “Wolf!” Why didn’t you come?”
An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.
“We’ll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning,” he said, putting his arm around the youth, “Nobody believes a liar…even when he is telling the truth!”
——————————————-
Why all this bullshit here Wright? It is just a bunch of rhetorical nonsense. The facts are clear enough to convince anyone who is actually sane that NIST is a total fraud, that the MSM is just propaganda, that 9/11 was a systemic Psyop. And no amount of jejune banter is going to convince anyone otherwise.
You continue to post all this “bla bla bla” here in face of prima facea evidence that you refuse to acknowledge. Your allegory of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” becomes bullshit spin when it has been and continues to be the system itself which is the premier liar of our era.
Why are you here spinning this bullshit Wright? What is your impetus? Why do you continue to make a fool out of yourself to a knowledgeable readership?
You do not address the evidence in any meaningful way. What about the obvious lies just illustrated concerning NISTs WTC7 Report. This is too obvious to deny Wright, you cannot just handwave this away with cherrypicked rhetorical bullshit.
Most of us here consider you a disgusting shill Wright, this is no secret, some kids never learn to play violin and continue to make screechy noises their whole lives. You are a prime example of that.
\\][//
@HR1
Some people don’t even need a violin..
Gary I really liked your last few comments and would only add to them by saying we have always had the power to change our world completely in our grasp. All we need to do is grasp that it is within our grasp.
I do hope, and urge that all concerned here will actually go to this page for a complete understanding of the issues with the fraudulent NIST Report on WTC7:
http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-5/#_edn2
\\][//
Craig I have a comment pending due to too many links can you please approve it?
The courts are stolen.
We know this.
We know of Bilderberg and of GLADIO b and anyone reading Al Martin knows what the vortex is.
Yet, and still; it is through the courts this massive conspiracy can and will be found out; IS BEING found out. That, Central to our ancient and accumulative past, the human desire to seek truth in the face of tyranny is coded into ‘the Law’ DNA .
Just as ‘the Corporation’ is separate and identifiable, so too is ‘the Conspiracy’. And so too is ‘the LAW’ set to contest it. ‘The law’ KNOWS ‘the conspiracy’ has it by its balls. By virtue of the fact.
But proponents know somewhere in that labyrinth of words there are means triggering actions and FREE FALL is a truth grenade already gone off ; is being contested by the conspiracy as we have seen over these posts – so that even while the raw calls of futility of action stand true, for one another.,
it is very wise for those others able to pursue through LAW, TO DO so.
To absolutely push ON.
No-one knows where the critical fail mechanism in the narrative is; because no one has got there yet, But it is IN there. a keystone. And NYC is the jurisdiction where this Law has to find its teeth, FREE FALL is its 2.25 second truth window,
and that is KNOWN by the conspiracy.
They do not want it entered into the record.
Whatever fault can be found of Mr Chandler regarding PENTBOM is balanced by his Davids free falling stone into the eye of the conspiratorial Goliath. He got it on record. Got the creatioNIST narrative to acknowledge FREE FALL .and that is cornerstone allowing the LAW to confront the LIE, the Goliath.
The corporate fascists rule. We know that – we see it every day, but this hypothesis of building disintegration is a construct. a graphic. The creatioNIST reports are cartoon sticks built on datasets held in secret. The secrecy surrounding the break element codes is evidence of the conspiracy against open and fair contest of 911 truth . Just as NISTs obfuscation of FREE FALL in their building assessment report is.
The LAW lords, sitting atop this festering deception, controlled, as Mr TICE and Sibel and other whistleblowers have witnessed, by various leverage; play with the fates that rule the world but they don’t control ‘chance’. They are there to stop any chance getting through, the entire opposite purpose of their intention, but with a thousand challenges to the lie pounding, chance will find purchase .
This initiative and the consensus panel are challenging in the language OF the LAW,
showing up its ass,
dragging it to its own defence.
The lawful contest of all available evidence.
As to practicalities of advocacy.
I am carving a 10.2 tonne volcanic stone ‘ode to 911’., possibly the single most futile human act confronting the conspiracy of 911 false flag.
Yet its what I do. Anything – everything – any of us does and sais to contest this great crime, is part of a fabric, a chain. Follow your strength. Say what you got to say.
Do what you got to do.
Now that’s what I call rhetorical bullshit…
That is because you are braindead stupid Wright.
Those who are not braindead zombies understand the Law. They grasp that the syndicate squatting in DC and other capitols of the western empire are Ultra Vires, utterly illegitimate. They are usurpers and pretenders, pirates, thieves, murderers and warmongers.
And YOU, you brainwashed enchanted shill of this putrid corrupt system, who acts as apologist for the indefensible, are an accessory after the fact in the eyes of the Law. And if Righteous Law should arise from a too long slumber Mr Wright, your ass is in deep shit.
\\][//
Hey Wright, read the following and then go find yourself a bunker to hide in:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014GanserVol39May.pdf
\\][//
‘overworked’ is all., Albury.
Yo Fremo,
I have the same tolerance for many of the people at The Journal of 9/11 Studies, as you do for Mr Chandler. Many of the original best things came and still come from that quarter, with the well mentioned exceptions we have cited here.
I know some of your artwork, and praise it. But where the heck did you get a 10.2 tonne volcanic stone to carve??? Wow!!!
I appreciate your words on the Law, Reason and Justice.
\\][//
Thanks Willy.
Law, reason, justice.
and Albury Wright is what we get.
Winner take History.
The stone grew in the ground around me. I live under a volcano. Subject to its presence at all times.
Hi lads (and Wright)
Did I just see Wright quote witnesses to dismiss all of the damning physical evidence that WTC7 was brought down?? I suppose he also gives an equal footing to the (firefighter) witnesses who described explosions in the lobby, lower floors and basement of the twin towers and heard and recorded throughout the day at WTC7? Of course he does. He’d be a hypocrite if he didn’t 🙂
Don’t worry AdamR. I’ve a feeling the dam is going to burst soon. The MSM is the only thing holding the water back and it’s leaking badly. My only worry is that there’ll be a false flag to top all false flags very soon because this dam is gonna break. Why do I say this? Either the recent NSA spying revelations, the debacle (for NATO/US/Israel) in Syria, the PR nightmare in Ukraine and the drawing of the line in the sand between China, Russia, parts of S. America, Syria and “the west” have been a horrible case of mismanagement, or the stage has been set for a war to distract from the global bankrupcy scam that is on the horizon. Either way, these people are underestimating what’s in store for them if and when the dam breaks.
Curious … I came so close to posting a comment asking if anyone had heard from you lately Onesliceshort, and now you show up like a conjuring. Very cool to have you back aboard.
Yes Mr Wrights wears those Jingobells on his pointed toed shoes as he flits about on wankabaster wings waving his fairy wand and sprinkling his fairydust about like prankmeister Puck Goodfellow from Hobbe’s Lane; avoiding Primrose at all costs.
Yup, “if it keeps on raining the levee’s gonna break”…
\\][//
@Onesliceshort
“Did I just see Wright quote witnesses to dismiss all of the damning physical evidence that WTC7 was brought down?”
No you didn’t , I think you must have misread it.
Someone named Greg Bacon posted a comment and mentioned that he was a firefighter for 20 years, so I posted a comment about the statements made by some of the firechiefs and firefighters who were at the WTC on 9/11 and what they had said on the subject of WTC7 , how they thought it was going to collapse etc.
Greg then said he hadn’t seen these statements by firefighters before and asked me for links to them.
I then posted comments from two of them , although I know there are more.
That was it, that was what I said.
I said that firefighters had made these statements and I then posted statements from two of them, without any comment from myself, just verbatim what they said in their interviews.
A Wright said..
Now I’ve looked twice and I can’t find any mention by you of the NIST Report or its contents (you know, that bad sales pitch nobody buys). So, if firefighters did say those things do you also accept their other statements about explosions both at the twin towers and wtc7? The “molten metal”?
These same firefighters had just seen two steel framed buildings turn to dust – something they had never experienced. Firefighters within tower 2 reported “small fires” and that they basically had it under control – just before it “collapsed”.
They allegedly said that the building would collapse “within a few hours” according to you. So, what, 2pm? 3pm?
What time were the first signs of fire seen on the 12th/13th floors?
How long did those fires last?
Putting the NIST lies aside about the beams, was there enough heat generated to cause this alleged damage to make it appear that it was “about to collapse…a few hours” before it did?
Do the calcs. I know the answer.
Remember, NIST claims that “fire and fire alone” brought the building down. Given the above, does this make sense to you?
“Now I’ve looked twice and I can’t find any mention by you of the NIST Report or its contents (you know, that bad sales pitch nobody buys). ”
Now you are telling me something else that I didn’t say, but this time complaining that I didn’t say it. I didn’t mention the NIST report. I didn’t know that there was a requirement to mention the NIST report when I was talking about something else. If there is a requirement to mention the NIST report in every post here I will try and mention it every time I post a comment. What I was talking about was what the FDNY firefighters said about their experiences on 9/11 regarding WTC7. This was years before the NIST report was even written so maybe you will understand my dilemma and also maybe understand why the firefighters didn’t mention the NIST report either.
“They allegedly said that the building would collapse “within a few hours” according to you. So, what, 2pm? 3pm?”
Have another look at what Deputy Firechief Hayden said.
You have other questions there that you already know the answers to so….
NIST said fires brought down WTC7. I’d say they are right because if it wasn’t fires it would have to be something else. If the engineers in NIST are liars and frauds they must know that explosives brought down WTC7. If they know that but still went and wrote a report that even you are say is fraudulent and a lie, then they most be the bravest people around, knowing that they are putting their names to a report that they know is fraudulent and demonstrably untrue and therefore implicates them in a cover-up of the mass murder of 9/11. I’d have just left NIST and got another job at the very least not got involved in doing something so stupid. If the government knew that WTC7 had been brought down by explosives do you really think they would have let NIST or anyone else investigate it, since they would know that a whole load of engineers in NIST would now find out that it was brought down by explosives. They would now have to write a report and then sign their names to it, a report that they knew themselves was false and that could be shown to be false- by other engineers. You must think other people are just stupid. Thinking other people are just stupid and do stupid things that don’t make sense, doesn’t make sense.
Wonderful logic. Fires brought Building 7 down because NIST scientists would never have signed a fraudulent report.
In fact, the report HAS been shown to be fraudulent whatever people’s motives were in supporting it.
Hahahahahaha!!!! Now ‘Das Logic’!!!
That is, “Logic” as put in Newspeak.
Remember what I said about being disingenuous Wright, you are batting a thousand in that department.
“Thinking other people are just stupid and do stupid things that don’t make sense, doesn’t make sense.” ~Wright
That one is a classic shill spill if I ever read one.
\\][//
Sometimes these threads can be hilarious! Having comic relief the likes of Wright make for an uplifting experience here. I gotta hand it to him if he is really writing his own scripts.
\\][//
Wow. Okay, I’m not going to decipher that last ramble of Wright’s. willy and. Craig summed it up. The only relevant snippet is this
Wright says
So, Hayden claims that..
NIST claimed that Column 79 on the east face of wtc7 was the initiating point of the collapse. Forgetting for a moment the fact that NIST lied about the safety features of this column and the exaggerations NIST made on the necessary heat, no office fires occurred on that side of the building until 2 o’clock. The same time that Hayden claimed to foresee the building’s collapse. A fire that burned itself out after 20 minutes before moving round the floor.
Hayden does not corroborate NIST. He contradicts them.
NIST’s Q and A session says
Got that?
If anybody wants to save time on answering Wright’s expected wordplay, here’s a handy link
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21924
Hey, OSS, it’s great to see you back.
Thanks Craig 🙂
You vill burn in Hades for dees shtand-upinzee routines her Wright!!
A jarful of Javoul !!
\\][//
OSS: I have heard from some voices that a Global monetary collapse will occur in 2016. The question is, do the elites have all the pieces on the table. I’ve always wondered would our soldiers turn on their own. My answer is hopefully no and that any attack on the American people would have to come by foreign armies/mercenaries.
Haha
Hi Willy
Been busy sniffin and diggin and came up for some air mate.
Peace
OSS
Wright quotes OSS thus:
-“Did I just see Wright quote witnesses to dismiss all of the damning physical evidence that WTC7 was brought down?”
Then Wright claims:
–“No you didn’t ”
. . . . . . .
Do you know what the definition to “disingenuous” is Mr Wright?
OSS did not say that you made any commentary as to your quotes. He asked if it was your INTENT; “to dismiss all the damning physical evidence that WTC was brought down”
Anyone having read your commentary knows that it was indeed your intent to dismiss such evidence by posting those quotes. As such anyone reading your reply can easily deconstruct that reply as disingenuous. It is a form of “Lie” to frame something in such a way, and it is a ‘bald faced lie’ to do so on a forum where everyone has your number.
So why indeed did NIST blatantly and fraudulently misrepresent the actual construction of WTC 7 Mr Wright? Will you now blatantly and fraudulently claim that their’s is not misrepresentation, that it is not scientific fraud?
Give that a shot Wright – go ahead, making an utter fool of yourself here seems to be your MO. Have at it.
\\][//
Aw oh…now Mr Wright has been asked two questions…Mine, and now OSS.
I know he is “limited” in abilities and can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. So some advice {friendly of course}; What you do Mr Wright is ‘chew in cadence’ that is with each chaw count. 1, 2 – 1,2 etc. Now if you want to walk too, say “Left-Right” — one for each chew. Be careful not to bite your tongue while doing this difficult task. And for heaven’s sake don’t try to blow a bubble or anything fancy like that. But if you really-really must. STOP WALKING first, blow your bubble, and then concentrate on your cadence again before attempting to walk.
With practice you may be able to impress friends and relatives with your new found skills.
Good luck.
\\][//
@HR1
“OSS did not say that you made any commentary as to your quotes. He asked if it was your INTENT; “to dismiss all the damning physical evidence that WTC was brought down”
No he didn’t. If he was asking if it was my INTENT to do something he should have written this, addressed to me.
“Hey Wright , was it your INTENT …..?”
And then I would have written
“No it wasn’t.”
Instead he was assuming what my intent was just based on the fact that I presented quotes from the firefighters and firechiefs who were there that day. You are also assuming what my intent was. As usual you are wrong. I don’t just take one piece of evidence and dismiss all the other evidence. That would be like something CIT would do for instance , and that would be foolish. Has that cleared it up for you?
What is interesting about it is that he made any comment on it at all and why you made any comment about it. Greg Bacon is a firefighter and I told him about what the firefighters said about WTC7. He said he hadn’t heard accounts from the firefighters who were there. I provided him with some of their statements. Do you disapprove of presenting all of the evidence to someone who is looking into what happened to WTC7? If he hadn’t heard their accounts do you think it’s ok to tell him about them? Do you have a problem with someone being told about the accounts of the firefighters and their assessment of WTC7 on the day? If you do that gives an indication about your intent.
I made the comments on the definition of ‘disingenuous’ argumentation before Mr Wright. And this squatpuddle denying your intent is one of those instances that show just how disingenuous you are. There is the matter of ‘subtext’ Mr Wright, do you know what that is? It is in the analysis of ‘Deconstruction’ that one finds the hidden assumptions of an author in the subtext. But your blatant text says enough in itself. Despite OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary you hold your untenable positions.
Rather than actually addressing the EVIDENCE that this whole thread is dedicated to, you continue with your rhetorical fart-dance. You ask me:
–“Do you have a problem with someone being told about the accounts of the firefighters and their assessment of WTC7 on the day?”
When in fact I already addressed that I object to your cherry picking the “accounts of firefighters that day” – and as several of us have pointed out the testimony of all of the first responders of 9/11 overwhelmingly proves they heard bombs going off, witnessed the flashes of squibs running up and around all three buildings:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
\\][//
So one more time Mr Wright, why indeed did NIST blatantly and fraudulently misrepresent the actual construction of WTC 7?
It is obviously this question that you attempt to handwave with your irrelevant squatdrippings.
\\][//
Willy
I think that this is the point where Wright disappears.
I had a “tar baby” debate (can’t help myself) with another slippery character last year who touted the official story and felt that he had the luxury of dismissing the NIST Report, add fuel fires to the equation and generally make his story up as he went along. He still, even using dishonest and irrelevant arguments, couldn’t bring that building down.
Much like Sarns and company claiming “NOC impact”.
As a previous poster said, it’s pointless debating these people because they are a sidetrack. Only problem is that you have to step into their cirque du soleil to show them up for the pathological liars that they are. And it helps us to dot the i’s and cross those t’s.
Thanks A Wright!
Yea the “don’t feed the trolls” dictum never made that much sense to me.
I say take their heads off for everyone to see the hot gas escaping from the wound.
Interesting you mentioning that point about “NOC impact” … it is so weird, I mean the logic is so plain, when one mentions ‘trajectory’ that for some to still not get it is baffling. I visited a past thread of T&S recently that I had never read before. Brian Good was on this one, and that was one of the points that just didn’t sink in with him. Amazing.
Buttboy Wright was on that one too, all the way back in 2011. Aldo was posting too. A very interesting discussion overall.
\\][//
@Willy
Brian Good used another username (if not two) at 911Oz to push the SOC path. He knew alright. His job was to troll and confuse.
I actually thought that you were him at one point here at T and S (my head was so far up my rectum with paranoia)! But I laughed (“off camera”) at some of your expressions so I knew it couldn’t be him lol.
@Fremo
The point is that even these (alleged) hearsay comments contradict NIST’s “findings”. If “office fires alone” brought wtc7 down, the firefighters couldn’t have seen the building in peril of collapse “a few hours” before it did 😉
Yep. Far as I can see, the rumors were begun purposely or at least utilized by the conspirators after first hearing, as FOG for the later Pinocchio Sunder ‘normal office furnishings fires’ agnotology.
Oops, I mentioned a black ball in my last comment and it is in moderation.
I will wait and see if Mr McKee will let it pass, before doing an excise tax.
\\][//
Long time no see OSS!!!!
In case you or anyone else missed my above comment, now completely sandwiched in the middle of the hamburger bun known as the top and bottom of the thread, let me re-post this little piece of Pentagon news concerning the “propaganda team” trying to influence Massimmo Mazzucco to rethink his position, unsuccessfully.
McKee said in response to a comment by Ruff:
“Even Massimo Mazzucco’s film, which avoided CIT and the North of Citgo evidence, made it crystal clear that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon.”
Indeed, the disinfo trio of Frank Legge, John Wyndham and David Chandler, as recently as this past October, wrote a “joint letter” to Mazzucco, though based on the writing style I’d say 99-100% of it was written by Legge; it reeks of his octogenarian flatulence.
http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Mazzucco_letter_Oct2013.pdf
They lament that he made the case for the non-impact, and how unfortunate it is that Mazzucco hadn’t been alerted to the excellent academic papers of Dr. Frank Legge, Ph.D. BEFORE putting out his film. Oh, if only he had, he would have been enlightened to the fact that indeed the plane DID hit!!! And of course, this academic paper from the Ph.D. professor cites the amazing work of such RESPONSIBLE truthers as Vic Ashley and Arabesque.
In conclusion, rather than point out here the many other problems with the film’s Pentagon
segment, we offer to work with you to bring the Pentagon segment into a state where it can
receive the respect of other scientists. We invite your thoughtful response.
Sincerely yours,
David Chandler, B.S. (Physics), MS (Mathematics) Email: davidchaler@gmail.com
Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) Email: flegge@iinet.net.au
John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics) Email: jcwyndham@myfairpoint.net
Anyway, my curiosity was piqued as far as what the joint letter to Mazzucco might have had on him, so I wrote Mazzucco, asking him what he thought of the people/arguments claiming that AA77 (or at least a large jetliner) did hit. He wrote a brief reply, partly saying he doesn’t want to talk about this because he’s burned out on 9/11. But he did answer my question:
Yes, Legge wrote to me, but I find his arguments unsustainable. The very arabesque list of witnesses is unsourced, thus essentially worthless.
Sorry, “propaganda team,” you failed to score one with Mazzucco like you did with Gage.
Hi Adam, how’s it going mate?
Yeah, I watched his Pentagon piece on the damage and have to say I was impressed having spent over three years (on and off) digging through the debris, so to speak. I sent him the address of my thread at Pilots but heard nothing back. If you’re still in touch with him, could you send him the link?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279
I think he’d be interested.
There are a few very important images taken down (by FEMA I suppose) at the imageshack site but I have them backed up :).
There are also a few new threads at Pilots in the Pentagon section (for you guys if you’re interested) regarding POVs on Rt 27 and a detailed breakdown of the NOC flightpath and manouevre broken down in three threads entitled “The witnessed speed” (which points to reverse thrust being used and could explain the discrepancies between witnesses who claimed to see the aircraft for up to “10 or more seconds” and those who saw it for much less – worth a look), “the left bank” and “right bank and Citgo”
“Octogenarian flatulence” LMAO!
Peace
OSS
Oh yeah, and the thread on the POVs is “Route 27 POVs”
I don’t think he’ll be interested, and might be slightly annoyed if I write him again. Here was the entirety of his message to me:
Adam
Aye, I know how he feels. Give him a while and he’ll come round. Sometimes we all need to step outside for a change of scenery to get that second wind, ya know?
Yeah, I hear you. It’s easy to get burned out. Well, we can take satisfaction of knowing that he’s on our side (the correct side) w/r to the Pentagon.
First responders “hearing the building was going to fall” are repeating hearsay. This is hearsay evidence.
The courts have very specific ways of cross-examining hearsay evidence, which, in face of the actual forensics of demolition available, would soon establish this as rumor; baseless as well as ‘sourceless’.
The over one hundred testimonies eyewitnessing explosive/incendiary events, are absolutely sourced and verified.
A Wright says
We’ve been over this before haven’t we Wright? If I remember correctly you failed miserably trying to present exactly what this “other evidence” was – strike that – I had to lay it out for you and explain how the majority was hearsay and based on faith in the government sources and denial of what the official story that you “defend” actually is!
Both WTC7 and the Pentagon incident are very similar in that basic physics (and aerodynamics in the case of the Pentagon) is thrown out the window. And that witness testimony is sidelined. Even the witnesses you cite contradict the NIST report!
Funny how both sites were allegedly a freakishly outlandish and fortunate sequence of events that lead to the destruction and mass assassination of documents and personnel linked to trillions of “missing dollars” in the military budget and the records of a decade of sleaze held by the SEC.
Those crazy, very lucky Arabs actually did more favours than damage to those they attacked! Go figure..
“Those crazy, very lucky Arabs actually did more favours than damage to those they attacked! Go figure..”~OSS
And of course this is why Cui bono is one of the most central questions in any investigation. Tightly linked to ‘Motive’ is the question of ‘who benefits’.
And this is why the infamous PNAC document is such a substantial lead in the case of 9/11. It is the agenda put forth in that document that was facilitated by the spin the Public Relations Regime put on the events of 9/11.
And the fact of how blatant the “New Pearl Harbor” segment makes dull boys out of any who can actually buy the official story after all this has been revealed.
The points about the targets containing so many tell tale documents the perps wanted to disappear is just icing on the cake of the main agenda for endless war, global constabulary fruition, and exponential tightening of despotic governance at home and abroad.
Wright is a CrackerJacks box with no special surprise, no peanuts, no caramel, and no popcorn; totally empty and void of all substance.
\\][//
Re: Pentagon
Incontrovertible points:
1) That Pentagon WAS hit 35 minutes AFTER everyone knew we were under attack.
2) Minetta sworn testimony that Cheney WAS aware of incoming plane.
2b) Secret Service agent Garibito CONFIRMS foreknowledge to CNN (Mazzo disc 1 @20:30)
3) Best video evidence/cameras WITHHELD at Pentagon.
My thought is to stay focused on what can be proved at this time.
Craig, you’re doing great work here. Thank you!
Peter
Yes, they were aware of an aircraft blip coming drom the west well before the event.
They were also aware (according to Mineta) of an aircraft approaching from the “north” according to the “30 miles out, 10 miles out” conversation which contradicts the NTSB and radar data.
Dulles ATCs and Mineta remembered seeing an aircraft crossing the Potomac River or “overflying” the Pentagon before looping back across the river. National Geographic made its own radar simulation of the event based on what they were told by ATCs.
The C130 pilot described flying north and west, “south of the Mall” when he encountered an aircraft.
Peter Jennings claimed in an ABC news report at 09:41 that a plane was “circling the White House”
An FAA employee reported the sighting from DC FAA buildings of an aircraft which was described as “VFR” (visual flight rules – no transponder) “six miles southwest of the White House”.
Witnesses on the river reported an aircraft flying from DC and looping round towards the Pentagon before seeing the smokeplume.
Multiple witnesses, including a high ranking colonel placed an aircraft at very low altitude much further south than the official path.
Multiple witnesses within the Pentagon basin place the aircraft on a trajectory that doesn’t match the damage through the lightpoles, generator trailer and building itself.
This is what we “know”.
Those points you raised can be morphed into a defense – “sloppiness”, “bad communications”, “confusion”, “unprofessionalism” or any other soundbite that the media and GLs can sweep under the carpet and massage the unsightly bulge left by it.
As for the cameras, did you know that one was proven to have been stolen by the FBI at the Citgo Gas Station?
My point would be “who believes that 35 minutes AFTER we know we’re under attack that a plane could fly into highly secure airspace unchallenged?” Strains credulity. A real investigation is need to iron out the details.
peter,
re your statement that “A real investigation is need[ed] to iron out the details.” in your view, who can be prevailed upon to perform such an investigation? i see only one viable possibility, the nyc department of buildings, via the high rise safety initiative. http://highrisesafetynyc.org
–“My point would be “who believes that 35 minutes AFTER we know we’re under attack that a plane could fly into highly secure airspace unchallenged?”~Peter
That may have been your point Peter, but that isn’t what you said. I quote:
–“That Pentagon WAS hit 35 minutes AFTER everyone knew we were under attack.”
This is pretty clear language. You say it was “hit”. I am disputing that it was “hit”.
Using the same lexicon we use to speak of the WTC towers; they were “hit” by aircraft; one event. They were subsequently blown up by explosives, a second event.
And aircraft did indeed fly into this highly restricted airspace, which in itself is preposterous unless it was allowed to. But it flew in by a north approach as is proven conclusively by witness testimony by those in the position to determine it’s real trajectory.
‘Trajectory’ is the key factor in this event. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an aircraft coming in at that angle to have caused the known damage to the Pentagon.
Therefore this aircraft flew over the Pentagon as bombs blew up inside sequenced in such a way as to give the appearance that the plane “hit” when in fact it flew through the smoke screen provided by internal explosives.
The same “slight of hand” used by stage magicians for centuries.
If you Peter, would study the incident in detail, rather than basing your opinion on ignorance of what is really known, you will find that the case that the Pentagon was not struck by any sort of aircraft is as beyond reasonable doubt as any of the other conclusive findings in the 9/11 case.
\\][//
“As for the cameras, did you know that one was proven to have been stolen by the FBI at the Citgo Gas Station?”
Yes, that’s my understanding.
We know we’ve been lied to and parsing too much about the Pentagon — when so much is in dispute — detracts from what we can prove (demo of towers and WTC 7, etc.).
“We know we’ve been lied to and parsing too much about the Pentagon — when so much is in dispute — detracts from what we can prove (demo of towers and WTC 7, etc.).”~Peter
Nothing that is true “detracts from what we can prove” – if it is true it is provable. We seek “the truth, the WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth”.
That is the charge of the search for justice.
You Peter, are playing politics and PR gambits. You are also arguing from a position of ignorance as per the Pentagon event. It doesn’t “detract” from any of the other evidence to include the conclusive evidence of what actually happened at the Pentagon. It only detracts from the complete truth to avoid the issue.
\\][//
I agree the truth about the Pentagon doesn’t detract from anything. The pentagon evidence adds a key piece to the overall picture and provides us damning proof of staged evidence thereby proving an inside job. This whole meme about the pentagon evidence somehow distracting from the other evidence is bogus. The meme about the pentagon evidence being under legitimate dispute is also bogus. The only people who dispute the pentagon evidence are the people who:
A. Are ignorant of the pentagon evidence altogether or at least partially, or they are familiar with it but don’t understand its implications due to a learning disability of some kind.
I place Peter who commented above in this catagory although I do not rule out catagory B at this point.
B. Active agents of the guilty party who are trying to cover-up the truth or at least muddy the waters.
I place Frank Legge in this catagory along with Victoria Ashley.
C. Ego maniacs who want their own contribution to 9/11 truth to be seen as the most important and only valid line of evidence. I place Kevin Ryan and David Chandler in this catagory although I do not totally rule out either of them being in catagory B.
My contention is that there is no LEGITIMATE dispute of the NOC pentagon evidence. There are only ILLEGITIMATE disputes from people falling into one of the three catagories listed above.
PS. If anyone in catagory C wants to be removed from that classification then have the courage and integrity to debate the pentagon with the experts and put 9/11 truth first ahead of your ego.
That should read “six miles southeast of the White House” then moments later “six miles southwest”
Peter claims:
–“Incontrovertible points:
1) That Pentagon WAS hit 35 minutes AFTER everyone knew we were under attack.”
Sorry Peter that is NOT an incontrovertible point at all.
If your thought is truly to “stay focused on what can be proved at this time,” then you should pay attention to what has been proved incontrovertibly at this time, which is; the Pentagon was not hit by an aircraft.
\\][//
I didn’t describe what “it” was, only that it was attacked. Flt 77? Drone? Other? The fact is that 77 was never re-identified after contact was lost.
That the Pentagon was attacked 34/35 (9:03 2nd twr, 9:38 Pent) minutes after 2nd tower hit is incontrovertible. I really don’t understand your point.
“I really don’t understand your point.”~Peter
My point is crystal clear, the Pentagon wasn’t hit by an aircraft, a drone, a missile, nothing. It was blown up by internal explosions.
\\][//
That’s your view; what I’m doing is DEBUNKING the official version, which is that a plane hit the Pentagon some 35 minutes after everyone knew that this was a coordinated attack, which strains credulity.
For clarification Peter, it is ‘my view’ as fully informed on the subject.
Your view is one made from ignorance – ignorance that could be mended by further study on your part.
It would be better for you to simply avoid speaking to the Pentagon case until you make such further studies. If you do not intend to make further studies on that portion of the 9/11 case then do not speak to it.
\\][//
Peter, I know you said that you won’t post here again but I can’t leave that comment unanswered…you say:
What exactly are you “debunking”?
It’s already out there that the skies were defenceless. That NEADS lied about timelines. That false reports were fed to ATCs that morning (Phantom 11, that “Flght 77” had already crashed, etc). It’s already a known that the closest F15s in the area were sent out over the Atlantic waiting for orders which never came. They’ve basically “admitted” that they “messed up”. Guess what? Nothing came of it because of this crafted “grey area” where at best you have a scenario where claims of LIHOP can always be waived away with squeals of incompetence.
It’s a safety net for government loyalists who defend it, an acceptable excuse for those “on the fence” as it seems plausible, or to those who you are new to the information.
I’m not dismissing it as being an important piece of the puzzle but there is much more to it than this. We have evidence of how the operational side of the incident was carried out. And you believe that this should be sidelined?
Dear Mr. Peter,
The “it” that did the hit may have been a missile attack from a construction trailer to impose the directional damage, combined of course with internal charges to be sure to wipe out what needed to be cleared: the investigators and files of the Office of Naval Intelligence looking into the missing $2.3 trillion in defense spending.
//
Reasoning from supposition is like idling in neutral – it takes an argument nowhere.
Reasoning from facts and data puts the argument in motion and moves it forward.
\\][//
The fickle mob. The lowest common denominator. Propaganda and the Public Relations Regime. Voodoo posing as ‘hi-tech’. These are the core issues confronting Truth.
\\][//
Willy
My solution to the “Pentagon is too controversial” mob?
Back off, shut up, go away and let researchers do their work. Let truthseekers draw their own conclusions.
As soon as they quote official sources without verification and lie about the witness pool, game over.
Peter says
I’m fully on your side as per WTC7 but the supposed “dispute” over the Pentagon is manufactured.
The same people spearheading this “dispute” over the NOC evidence actually point to the official story and accept unverified “evidence” from the same people who covered up the demolition of WTC7. From the same people who made sure there was a free run at the Pentagon.
I can’t see what’s more obvious than the fact that no witness placed the aircraft on the trajectory of the damage path.
We need only show that the towers were the result of controlled demolition to invalidate the entire official narrative. Controlled demolition is not just “good evidence”, but an historical experience and empirical fact with an demonstrable, empirical answer.
My post above on the Pentagon was not for the purpose of injecting my opinion nor arguing the fine points, but for showing that the official view is nonsense. A real investigation with witnesses under oath and access to raw data is how that issue could be resolved. In the meantime it’s a harmful distraction from what we can easily prove with precision.
Peter,
Please clarify, what is the “it’s” in your sentence of “In the meantime it’s a harmful distraction from what we can easily prove with precision.”
“it’s” = quibbling over Pentagon matters that are in dispute.
Some may know more and better about the Pentagon, but if I were talking to someone on the street and they were skeptical that 9/11 is a constructed, inside event — as I believe — then all that need be said is “Do you think it’s credible that 35 minutes after the 2nd tower was hit that an unidentified plane could fly unmolested into the highly secure airspace of Washington DC?”
–““it’s” = quibbling over Pentagon matters that are in dispute.”~Peter
Again, I object to using the expression “quibbling”. This “quibbling” could be used as an excuse to avoid the entire issue of 9/11 as a whole, and is used that way by those who say, “it has been more than a dozen years ago, get over it, move on.”
As OSS said the “dispute” is manufactured by those who handwave the real crucial evidence, the prime subject being Frank Legge and his utterly spurious nonsense papers claiming to prove that a plane did hit the Pentagon.
So Peter, if you will stop ‘quibbling over Pentagon’ and concentrate your commentary on issues you have expertise in, I will stop objecting to your commentary.
\\][//
You’re an unbearable bore and idiot who couldn’t get THE POINT of a pencil if it were shoved in your ear.
Hahahaha…wonderful tactic of argumentation Peter.
You just made your POINT rather conclusively for me.
\\][//
peter,
i would suggest to you that the devil is in the details. this is not “quibbling.” this is getting down to what really happened.
i would also suggest that you have bought into the whole “ignore the pentagon” evidence rap (as i did when a “student” at the (highly infiltrated) 9/11 blogger. return that purchase. the pentagon is key. no way al qaeda could have planted bombs in the pentagon, bombs which appear to have been the cause of death and destruction. with the pentagon, there is no clearer case for “inside job.”
that 9/11 “leaders” send you elsewhere, yes, even to bldg 7 (my focus), says to me that “they” think that they can control the fallout there, no matter what.
there is no controlling the fallout at the pentagon, and so they are distracting you and others away from the pentagon.
all that being said, i still think that, at the moment, our best bet is with the high rise safety initiative, http://highrisesafetynyc.org. consider supporting the effort there. and others here reading this who have not provided a dollar or two of support, WTF?
–d
I have.
Peter I am reposting this from above in case you do not see it up higher in the thread:
I agree the truth about the Pentagon doesn’t detract from anything. The pentagon evidence adds a key piece to the overall picture and provides us damning proof of staged evidence thereby proving an inside job. This whole meme about the pentagon evidence somehow distracting from the other evidence is bogus. The meme about the pentagon evidence being under legitimate dispute is also bogus. The only people who dispute the pentagon evidence are the people who:
A. Are ignorant of the pentagon evidence altogether or at least partially, or they are familiar with it but don’t understand its implications due to a learning disability of some kind.
I place Peter who commented above in this catagory although I do not rule out catagory B at this point.
B. Active agents of the guilty party who are trying to cover-up the truth or at least muddy the waters.
I place Frank Legge in this catagory along with Victoria Ashley.
C. Ego maniacs who want their own contribution to 9/11 truth to be seen as the most important and only valid line of evidence. I place Kevin Ryan and David Chandler in this catagory although I do not totally rule out either of them being in catagory B.
My contention is that there is no LEGITIMATE dispute of the NOC pentagon evidence. There are only ILLEGITIMATE disputes from people falling into one of the three catagories listed above.
PS. If anyone in catagory C wants to be removed from that classification then have the courage and integrity to debate the pentagon with the experts and put 9/11 truth first ahead of your ego.
Adam,
I would be careful as to how you come across on screen, especially as I know you personally and know you to be a good and well meaning activist. To be fair to Peter, I highly doubt he has a learning disorder. That’s an inflammatory charge and also insensitive to people who clinically DO have a learning disorder. My best guess is that he’s not familiar with with the NoC evidence in particular, but is just aware that there’s some “disagreement” in the movement on the Pentagon. (Peter can correct me if I’m wrong, if interested.) You have to be careful, Adam, with the kind of rhetoric you use; I would certainly take exception to someone I’ve never met, making the assumption that I have a learning disorder and even saying so on a public forum. Indeed, your words could be cited as an example of: “See, those CIT supporters are so rude to those who don’t see 100% eye to eye with them…”
That being said, I think you are basically spot on in your three categories, and I think that’s an interesting distinction between B and C. I think you are likely correct in the cases of Chandler and Ryan being egomaniacs who want their own research and evidence to take center stage. When I wrote my review of Kevin Ryan’s book, and Ryan responded by calling me an agent[1], David Griffin said to me via email, “That’s too bad. Ryan has never been good about accepting criticism, but this seems extreme.” I agree that Legge and Ashley are the prime culprits in category B.
That being said, I do agree with you that anyone who, for example, HAS watched NSA from beginning to end, and still claims they “don’t get it,” I have to scratch my head. I just recently showed the film to a few activists in Seattle who were longtime 9/11 truthers but still not familiar with the NSA film (and CITs supplemental presentations). As I watched it again for the first time in a couple years, it reminded me of exactly why I was so blown away the first time I watched it.
Here’s where “Game On!” comes in: If, in response to the question “Have you seen CIT’s NSA and do you understand the implications of the NoC evidence?”
If Peter were to respond the way “Vesa” did to me in 2009 at 911blogger, which was:
I watched it with the same openmindedness…
… with which I’ve watched other 9/11 material, and I didn’t find it particularly convincing.[2]
THEN, my friend… it’s Game on, brother!
Sources:
[1]http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/7301/n8ib.jpg
[2]http://911blogger.com/news/2009-10-26/adam-syed-discusses-pentagon-anomalies-and-national-security-alert-cincinnati-tv#comment-220433
Peter: I’ve got your point and anyone with the philosophy of live and let live gets it. However, remember God has a computer and likes to pick fights. This mythical figure is an internet junkie projecting his shortcomings on others, like yourself. A 9/11 Truther in theory, his poor manners would never make to real activism with the people in the streets and town halls. Thank people like David Ray Griffin for his academic standards and professional demeanor.
So Owen sat on Peter’s point and really liked it.
I’m so happy he “got it” — You know, different strokes for different folks.
Hohohohehehehahaha
\\][//
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-barbara-honegger-show-dc-911-conference-spun-as-new-consensus/
Until those such as Peter and Owen have taken the time to read and grasp the article and all of the analysis and points made in the link above, they should expect nothing more than the ridicule they receive here.
If they expect to slide by with chit-chat born of ignorance here they are sorely mistaken.
\\][//
Peter: Are you familiar with the following presentation? Some investigators decided not to wait decades or generations for that “new investigation with subpoena power.” Using the limited resources they had, they uncovered a major smoking gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
I agree with you Humperdinck,
WE ARE THE INVESTIGATION.
Waiting for the “officials” to investigate themselves honestly, is to wait for the mountains to tumble to the sea.
Open source investigation has been successful in breaking the 9/11 case wide open. We don’t need subpoenas at this point, all we need are arrest warrants for the known perpetrators.
I want to see trials for murder in the first degree, for warcrimes. I don’t need another stinking whitewash “official investigation?.
\\][//
willy, re “I want to see trials for murder in the first degree, for warcrimes.” we all do, but how do you propose to make that happen?
Dennis,
I do not have a proposal to make the trials take place.
What we want and what we can reasonably get are very often very different things.
This doesn’t mean that standing up and arguing for truth is futile. Truth has it’s own inherent beauty whether generally appreciated or not. It invigorates those who hold on to it, and eventually diminishes those who betray it.
\\][//
As it is suggested by some analysis; we may be headed towards a “WWIII Scenario”. If this is so, and that is debatable, there is the “outside chance” that such Judgement as referred to above could possibly be extraterrestrial.
I am not suggesting that this is so, I am merely positing that it is a possibility.
\\][//
willy,
can’t and won’t argue against your points. we all do what we feel compelled to do, or not do what we feel compelled not to do.
re: the “extraterrestrials” — at our core, it is my firm belief that we are the extraterrestrials, aka, spiritual beings having a human experience. but, who knows?
something’s coming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu7sRdRrm_w
.
Lol Dennis,
You say, “at our core, it is my firm belief that we are the extraterrestrials, aka, spiritual beings having a human experience.”
Actually that is more to what I was getting at than “little gray men”.
I do believe that ultimately it is up to us.
\\][//
Spiritus Mundi
\\][//
Such just judgment has been a long time coming:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-myth-of-the-good-war-america-in-world-war-ii/17515
THE DEMONIC DUO: The Anglo-American Monster
\\][//
Craig, you write great articles and I apologize to YOU for losing my cool.
I will continue to read your articles, but will refrain from any further comments in the future.
P.S. You might want to revisit your comment policies. All the best.
Peter says
You simultaneously say that you didn’t mean to inject an opinion or argue the points then sashay off with a very firm (repeated) statement that the Pentagon issue is “a harmful distraction”.
I’ll not bait to your wordgames Peter. I’ll just repeat the fact that the supposed dissent within the truth movement is both manufactured and hypocritical. And more damaging to the WTC7 evidence than you can apparently grasp.
I see that A “Groundhog Day” Wright is being true to form. Once the nitty gritty is rolled out showing how empty his statements are, he rolls off.
@Onesliceshort
You sound relieved. Is that the intention of the snide remarks, insults, etc. that litter your comments, or are you actually interested in debating things, rather than berating people – so they stop debating? It works for HR1 as you can see with ‘Peter’ here – and he was someone who actually more or less agreed with HR1. Try and come back with a reply to this that doesn’t include snide remarks and insults and let’s see whether you are interested in debating or just in berating.
“…berating people – so they stop debating?”~A Wright
But is is NOT when you are “berated” that you disappear Wright, it is when you are asked to answer specific points that you disappear. This is a verifiable constant with you as can be seen documented on this blog for at least 2 and a half years here.
\\][//
A Wright
I’ve taken apart your posted quotes from firefighters, specifically Hayden, and have shown that he and NIST contradict eachother. That’s where our last exchange was at.
1. Hayden was referring to the southwest corner which was damaged.
2. Hayden claimed that there were no heavy fires at this time (2 o’clock)
3. NIST claimed that the damage to the southwest section had no bearing on the “collapse” (that it was secondary to the initiation of “collapse”)
4. NIST claimed that structural failure was initiated on the east of the building
5. NIST claimed that “office fires and office fires alone” brought the building down
6. No fires were reported nor seen on the eastern face of the building until 2 o’clock
Hayden does not corroborate the official story.
Do you acknowledge this contradiction or not?
Getting back on this … I don’t see what point you are trying to make here. You ask do I acknowledge this contradiction or not as if there was some significance to it.
The firechief observed the severe damage to the building on the southwest corner and put a sight on it and judged that it was unstable and that with the fires continuing unchecked , it would likely cause the building to collapse. They couldn’t see inside the building so the major damage to the exterior was what they could see and what concerned them. They were not doing a structural survey or trying to predict where the collapse that they thought was pretty inevitable would start ,or what girder inside the building would collapse first or how or where exactly the fires would progress over the next few hours. Looking at the major damage going half way up the building was enough for them to consider that the building was in a dangerous condition. You are not disputing that that is what he and others said about this, that this was their assessment of the building? I am certainly not.
The NIST report was to try and establish how that eventual collapse finally came about which they also said was due to the fire. Whether they are correct or not is another matter and they are fairly cautious about it, but if the collapse of the roof on the east side happened first, that is an indication that the collapse started below that area. It’s like a paramedic judging that someone who has been shot is in a serious condition and needs to get to hospital urgently and , after the victim has died hours later, a coroner establishing the cause of death. It’s not a question of the paramedic corroborating or not corroborating the coroner or vice versa, they are doing different things. A paramedic wouldn’t say the coroner was wrong because he thought the victim was going to die from shock rather than a collapsed lung or whatever the coroner’s verdict was. If NIST said it started at the southwest corner would you say Hayden was corroborating the official story? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? I just can’t see what point is being made here.
The point I would make is what problem there is with people being told and shown the interviews with the firefigthers who were there that day? The fact that this ‘Greg Bacon’ hadn’t heard about these interviews in about 12 years makes me think the 9/11 truth movement don’t really want to mention it very much – when they stop people on the street with information about WTC7 , do they talk about ‘foreknowledge and Jayne Standley etc but not tell people the FDNY were predicting the collapse of the building for hours, and stood around towards the end waiting for it to happen? That is giving people just one half of the evidence and giving people one half of the evidence is usually worse that giving them none at all.
On the question of the details of the structure of the buildings I would be surprised if NIST would get their facts wrong but then I haven’t read the NIST report and I wouldn’t claim to know the significance of it. In my job I have to consult manufacture’s manuals and documentation and I often find incorrect dimensions and diagrams and contradictory information. I then have to raise a case with the manufacture’s engineering dept. and point out these errors. The result is that they will usually issue new revised versions of their documents with the errors corrected. I raised a case just today where there was a 4mm error in a conversion factor in a diagram which doesn’t seem a lot but when you are normally dealing with thousandths of an inch it is significant. These are pretty important manuals as well so it’s not like they are household appliances or something.
–“On the question of the details of the structure of the buildings I would be surprised if NIST would get their facts wrong but then I haven’t read the NIST report and I wouldn’t claim to know the significance of it.”~A Wright
And this is the reason everything you have to say here is empty twaddle Wright__bullshit rhetoric.
“The NIST WTC 7 report has been proven to have fatal flaws in their collapse initiation hypothesis due to the omission of pertinent structural features which make that hypothesis impossible.”
It isn’t that they published a measurement that was off as in your analogy Wright. It is that they misrepresent the way the building was actually constructed. Your being “surprised if NIST would get their facts wrong,” is another of your false arguments from incredulity. You have had enough lectures on proper argumentum and critical processes here to have gotten it, if you were paying attention and actually wanted to understand.
We can only assume that you do not want to understand, that this is not your purpose here. Your true purpose here is to squall anal hurlant by spewing meaningless jabber and wasting reader’s time.
Your attempts at appearing ‘reasonable’ are pure burlesque, a show of petty nonsense.
\\][//
A Wright
The majority of my posts are for the purpose of discussion, debate, pointing out research, answering government loyalist claims (and where they’ve been discussed) and the odd rant (admittedly poorly written at times) but when talking to you, it’s not that I’m trying to bully, insult or belittle. Most of the time I’m trying to poke and prod to squeeze a valid, non ambiguous, non dodge, duck and dive response from you.
I know you’re reading this blog, skipping over the questions and (multiple) facts that you don’t feel comfortable with or which may not be covered in some 911Myths mental masturbation piece, or some script you adhere to (no, not a govt script – your own script). I used to be exasperated with myself for falling in to the trap of actually believe that you would stick around and grind it out in an open, honest debate. After seeing each disappearing act, just like Honegger and Deets (yes, you’re exactly like them), when each point is put under a microscope and measured against evidence, facts and logic, I decided that the only reason that you should be responded to is for the sake of readers who are new to certain information.
You wouldn’t believe how much more indepth understanding, research avenues and new found energy people like yourself give me!
Thank you!
A.Wright reminds me of Bagdad Bob or a mixture of Bob and Salacious B. Crumb:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Y6YfDBmh8
Could the “B” in Salacious B Crumb’s name stand for Bob? Just asking.
Yes OSS,
Wright is true to his skewered form even in his comeback. He always comes back to make a blither-blather pointless cuntatella rather than a remark bearing substance.
The thing is “berating” has to do with an empty attempt to lower someones “rating” in the eyes of the readership, and as Wrights rating on sincerity is nil chill null and devoid of all substance at any rate, his is a short skate on thing ice before just bubbles burble as he sinks.
The fact is, I was using reasoning, to show that Peter was being unreasonable. And just like with Mr Wright, Peter became frustrated to be publicly outed as speaking from a position of ignorance and making hypocritical statements. Something Mr Wright has a long history of himself.
He says that Peter is “even on my side”… well it is not a matter of “sides”, it is a matter of reason and making sense. A matter that Mr Wright himself is totally inept at.
Wright thinks he can jump back into the fray here as some ‘noble prince of the fair’ and defend against injustice. But it is all pretense, like everything else about Wright.
Does he truly believe that the forum forgets that he was asked this question twice now and has avoided and dodged it for the entire discussion?:
>>So one [3] more time Mr Wright, why indeed did NIST blatantly and fraudulently misrepresent the actual construction of WTC 7?
A Wright is once again reminded that his squatdiddling rhetorical blather will be highlighted and pointed out each and every time he spills such bullshit on the forum.
\\][//
As it is, I would have left further comments about Peter aside. But now it has developed to the analysis stage of what goes on in the threads of this forum.
So I will note that we have seen the same MO of “Truthers” showing up here and making spurious arguments defending their various clicks. We have a great influx of such individuals on the Honneger thread.
And when these commentators are confronted for making senseless arguments and shown to be hypocritical in their approach, we are accused of
“berating” them. This is in itself false argumentation, for ridiculing the ridiculous is not in any sense irrational or unjustified ad hominem. It is simply pointing out the obvious facts as they develop.
And so often we see, as Peter has done, “advice” given to Mr McKee as to how he should “see to his comments policy”, intimating that these characters have in some way been abused. It abuses no one to stand to reason and point out spurious and illogical argumentation. The abuse comes from such spurious argumentation – NOT in pointing it out.
Dealing with obvious shills like A Wright is another matter – but one where we see him defending these illogical “Truthers” as a backhanded way of promoting the ‘divide and conquer’ agenda the Sunsteinian League promotes. As to that these so-called “Truthers” should pay focused attention and learn the lesson as to who it is who is actually creating splits in the seam of the fabric of truth.
\\][//
This is a very interesting discussion here with Tony Szamboti arguing with the idiots at JREF.
Funny in that these characters at JREF bill themselves as top notch mature skeptics. They act like sixth graders out on the playground with no teachers around, taunting and making faces. Mr Szamboti handles it all very well and ends up making a very thorough case against NIST.
Some of the arguments used against Tony are as jejune as something from A Wright, while some are just arrogant jibes by guys claiming expertise that they obviously only pretend at.
http://forums.randi.org./showthread.php?t=267933&page=23
\\][//
Willy
I admire Tony Szamboti’s dignity, composure and steadfastness in the face of those idiots. I’ve been there long haul at times and I know how it feels to be surrounded by the hyenas there repeating the same garbage in the face of facts.
Mightn’t mean much hearing it from a gnarly old fart like myself but you’re a gent Mr Szamboti and I appreciate your work.
Actually OSS it means quite a lot to me to read that. Thank you.
I hope you know how much I appreciate your work as well. It is some of the very best there is on the Pentagon event.
Of course Tony is a heavy weight in the 9/11 Truth arena and deserves all of our praise and thanks.
Another gnarly old fart, \\][//
Consensus without trappings of nonsense seems a difficult stage to reach.
The constrictions put on rendering the WHOLE TRUTH arises from a form of timidity, trying not to put scare off a herd of frightened animals; from an attempt to persuade those who simply don’t give a damn about anything but bread and circuses.
I have explained before the ways in which consensus itself is transient, a temporary alignment which is generally upheld by appeal to authority rather than firm and complete argumentation. Thus it is necessarily piecemeal. As such the pieces taxi from moment to moment; the weakest links never too far between.
It is my opinion that the current, ‘Consensus Du Jour’ will only achieve a ‘Success Du Jour’ because they, like all authoritarian structures hand-wave legitimate dissent; because they like all authoritarian structures rely on cliquish familiarity and incestuous intellectual tendency. As some of my own compatriots here have noted the agency of short alphabetical insignia takes on the nature of a brand, ie; “PhD Inc.”
Again it will frustrate some that I come not bearing solutions nor healing potions. It seems to me to be a plight of the species, the nature of the game in every aspect of that term… ‘The Most Dangerous Game’.
\\][//
willy,
as i think you know, i believe the consensus approach works for some people and brings in others. i also trust drg and his assessment that this is one way to go. better than doing nothing, in my view.
Thank you for your reply Dennis,
I do not mean to be against the consensus panel per se. It is that my assessment is such that it will only have a temporary effect. Also, as I have just noted, it may “bring in others” it also ushers out yet others; those who would have a more complete assessment of ALL of the facts and have thus far been left out in the cold.
As this something is being done, and IS “better than doing nothing”, I agree with. But this agreement is parsed and amended with my dissent that ignoring so much is not doing all that is possible; a compromise. A compromise with truth.
\\][//
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/05/28/weve-had-more-than-enough-revelations-and-the-american-majority-has-spoken/comment-page-1/
Sibel Edmonds on ‘Public Apathy’ – That herd I speak of in my comment above.
\\][//
The American Majority & Its Deadly Chronic Disease Called Apathy
“They say we need more revelations. I say we have had more than enough revelations on synthetic wars, atrocities, surveillance and torture. They wonder when the majority of Americans are going to speak up. And I say: The American Majority has already spoken—loud and clear.
The United States government has been engaged in the worst kind of human rights abuses, detention and torture around the globe. That’s a fact. And the American Majority knows this. The US Congress, NGOs and various human rights organizations, numerous reports, witnesses, leaks and whistleblowers, even the government propaganda outlets (aka US media) have established this as an undisputable fact: The United States has been engaged in unthinkable ongoing operations involving kidnapping, torture, black sites and detention centers, and murder all over the world. The American Majority knows this. They have spoken: with their silence.”
– See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/05/28/weve-had-more-than-enough-revelations-and-the-american-majority-has-spoken/comment-page-1/#sthash.2m0asvek.dpuf
\\][//
Left response to Ruff and co. re the Pentagon issue:
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/new-consensus-points-show-nist-ignored-critical-wtc-7-evidence-ae911truth-may-launch-suit/#comment-23833
Hello Mr Syed,
I read that response to Mr Ruff. At the time I didn’t realize it was to his “co.”
But I remember the gist of it.
\\][//
“and co.” referred to anyone who was interested in following the sub-thread discussion related to the Pentagon.
This is a particularly sweet catch Adam:
“In fact here is Mike Walter standing on the north side of the citgo describing the plane banking on the north side!”~Adam Syed on Wed, 11/04/2009 – 1:44am.
Another North Side witness … regardless of his retractions on other details, he verifies NOC … very cool.
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-10-26/adam-syed-discusses-pentagon-anomalies-and-national-security-alert-cincinnati-tv#comment-220433
\\][//
It was others who made the catch and me who was relaying it… at that point in time, many, but not all, supporters of that evidence had been shown the door. I was one of the very last such people to be banned, precisely because I was one of their most valued and prolific contributors. But eventually the owner Justin Keogh decided that only users who supported the Frank Legge camp be permitted to keep posting there, so I eventually got the ban hammer too, along with onesliceshort and a guy who’s been off the scene for a few years now, called “Stefan.” He was one of the most civil people you could imagine and the idea that he was tossed off for violating the rules is laughable.
AdamS
I had actually posted just once at 911Blogger before they banned me lol.
I miss Stefan. Whatever happened to him?
@Willy
“They have spoken: with their silence.”
Not so long ago I had posted a piece on FB on 800 infant remains being found in a cess pit in Ireland dating back to the 1920-50s and medical experiments being carried out in orphanages in Ireland (my turf). I asked my own family and extended friends to share this. One or two likeminded did. Many others shared the news of the death of a (locally famous) comedian/actor. I mean, like wildfire.
I left a message under the image of the haunted faces in the black and white photo accompanying the story I had posted simply saying “Nobody cares…sorry kids”
I’ve tried shock tactics posting images of lines of brothers and sisters blown up in Pakistan. Or recently the image of a pregnant woman strangled and lying backwards over a desk, murdered by Obama’s Nazi’s in Ukraine. Nothing shakes them out of their stupor. And I’m talking about a group of people who’ve seen, heard and felt govt black ops first hand.
Wtf?
Aye OSS,
It is a heartbreaker, and one of the great mysteries of the species, this tendency towards blind apathy. All bound up in denial and delusion, fear and loathing and trembling within their fake barricade of indifference.
I too am of Irish – and Scot ancestry. “Wyden” is the first known pronunciation of my surname. This clan was in the “no-mans land” area of the border between Scotland and Ireland. My mother’s side is Irish and came to the western continent just around the time of the Revolution. I think it was they who put a fledgling Loch Ness creature in Lake Erie. Or so I have heard it claimed.
\\][//
Ah … thank you Mr Syed,
That is a very interesting back and forth on the Blogger site.
C. Sarns is quite the piece of work aye?
It is quite disappointing that even yet today there are those who will make up just about any excuse to dismiss the CIT evidence.
Thanks for the link.
\\][//
Going back and looking at that thread, “Vesa” doesn’t even make sense. He said:
One thing is that I cannot understand why they’d have painstakingly faked a flight path that is just slightly different from the official flight path.
No, Vesa, it was the official flight path that they “painstakingly faked.” The flight path that the plane took, for whatever reason, was slightly off the official path.
Who knows why that was. (Other than the perps themselves.) Maybe they didn’t care about the actual flight path because they arrogantly thought no one would pick up on the anomalies. Or maybe the GPS-guided remote control system had the plane off by a few hundred feet too north. (I’ve used a car GPS system before where it tells me that I’ve arrived at my exact destination when in fact I’m still about 200 feet shy of it.)
Sounds like “Vesa”, in 2009, had an extremely foggy understanding of the evidence (i.e. in Adam Ruff’s “A” category) or was deliberately uttering nonsense (Ruff’s “B” category).
But it didn’t really matter how much substance his comments had; he said he wasn’t convinced by the NoC evidence, and that was all he needed to say to receive his up votes and remain in good graces there.
Yes Mr Syed,
It was obvious looking at the vote tallies that the dice are loaded on Blogger. The problem any blog has with that approach is that it will be most obvious to any lucid reader that the lunatics run that asylum. It is like reading the quacks on JREF, anyone with a couple of neurons to click together can see that it is a click of fanatical true believers in “authority”.
This sure has been a fascinating 12 – coming up 13 years. The old Chinese curse comes to mind.
\\][//
Yes, and the fact that such otherwise respectable people as Chandler and Ryan align themselves with those quacks is very perplexing to say the least. Have they been duped into believing that Dr. Frank Legge, Ph.D., is on the right side of the issue? Are they deliberately acting as gatekeepers? Or have their egos and pride in their own research gotten in the way so much that they don’t want to share the stage with others who’ve unearthed crucial evidence?
“So is it really more revelations we need? More whistleblowers? More alternative websites in the business of educating the people on these issues? Because from where I stand I can tell with one hundred percent certainty: The American Majority already knows. They have spoken: with their silence. And their silence speaks more than a million words.”
~Sibel Edmonds
\\][//
Ridicule: I expect nothing more than garbage from you. See, all you can do is spew garbage because all you put in is garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. Have you noticed that you’re at the epicenter of all the animus here because you create it? You’re an old man of low vibrations. Every fine point you make gets negated by your low class slurs. Isn’t it time to change that diaper, old man?
If 9/11 Truth was left to people like you at the beginning, it would have never taken off. Thank goodness for people like DRG.
Owen, calm down.
You don’t even know the backdrop to his comments. You don’t know that the same “quacks” he’s referring to (Legge and co.) are and were part of a campaign slandering Chandler, Cole, Griffin and Gage after they signed up to dismissing Pentagon research and evidence (in complete ignorance or succombing to their stroken egos). And the “people like [us]” defended their work even though Chandler and co treated “people like [us]” like pondscum. Confused? Welcome to the party.
OSS,
Owen is complacent in his ignorance, just like Peter. They are content to float their colored balloons of hot air, rather than do the hard work of discovering the facts of the issues they attempt to speak to.
I offered them both a great source of information and analysis available right here on the T&S blog; the “Honegger Show” thread, which has enough information as well as the leads to your P4T articles on the Pentagon issue.
If it is too much to demand, that those who come on these threads spouting ignorant bullshit see to educating themselves, then like I said to Owen, he and his ilk deserve nothing but ridicule.
I wore out my kid-gloves quite a few years ago, and I am not about to invest in a new pair to deal with these jejune pretenders. None of these clowns seem to have the sense to scout out a blog and look into who they may have to engage if they come off half cocked with squirrely nonsense. If they were to do so, they wouldn’t be “O’so shocked” in having to confront me. I am brutally frank and I offer no apologies for being so. I think playing patty-cake with these dolts is a waste of time. If they cannot take the heat then they should stay the fuck out of the kitchen.
\\][//
I agree AGAIN with you HR1. I have lost my ability to be cordial to people who refuse to educate themselves on the topic at hand. I was scolded somewhat for coming off poorly towards Peter a while back in the thread and while I do see the point of the scolding I feel my comment was on target, though admittedly a little rude. I have to say though that it is equally rude or maybe more so when people such as Peter come in here poorly educated on the pentagon evidence and lecture us on why we should just drop it and stick with the CD evidence. Peter went on to claim he was educated about the pentagon evidence and had resolved that it was “in dispute” so we should just drop it. So yes I was a bit rude in my response but I don’t think any more so than Peter himself doing what he did.
I have lost my patience for the games people play. If you can’t debate your position then perhaps your position is weak or God forbid wrong. I just can’t find it in me to be cordial to people like that who take a position like Peter did, refuse to discuss it or answer the critiques of that position, and then play the victim card when we reject that position and point out the fact that they refused to debate it legitimately. It isn’t rude of us to call them out on that kind of crap, it is rude of them to do that. If you have a position then stand up and debate it honorably and if it stands up to scrutiny then it is probably a good position, if not then have the integrity to admit it was wrong. Don’t come in here spouting some nonsense, refuse to legitimately debate it, and then stomp off like a spoiled child when we reject your nonsense claiming you are the victim. NO!
The exact reason I do not discuss anything with trolls like A.Wright is because he uses this exact tactic as described above. When he is called out on a particular point he disappears rather than discuss it like an honorable person would. He comes back later claiming he is the victim of unfair attacks. It is a disinformation tactic nothing more. He is not being treated unfairly he is abusing us by refusing to debate in any sort of legitimate way yet still demands his voice be heard. A person who refuses to debate and yet wants to be heard is a preacher. I refuse to be preached to and I am not buying into his religion. I consider it extremely rude to do what Peter did and what A.Wright does every time he/she/it comes in here. If you can’t debate your position or answer scrutiny of it then your position is probably worthless. I contend that Peters position is without merit and I contend that A.Wright is intentionally sabotaging this blog or at least attempting to do so. If they dispute that then stand up and hash it out with me. In other words use this blog for what it is intended for, to legitimately debate 9/11 issues, to scrutinize evidence, and to come up hopefully at the end with the truth.
It is NOT a legitimate debate to spout your position and then refuse to respond to criticisms of that position. In a legitimate debate you have to address your opponents remarks in a legitimate way, you can’t just dodge all those points and expect to be taken seriously. When you do what A.Wright does and what Peter does you are not going to be taken seriously.
@Adam Ruff
Where did you ever debate with me , on any thread on this blog any points that I raised about CIT and the Pentagon or anything else? I can recall only once, and that ended when you stomped off indignantly , to the moral high ground which you seem to occupy , to dispense your dismissive personal insults and declarations about how you refuse to debate with those that would dare to debate with you. What has your contribution been to ‘debate’ with me on this thread?
Since A Wright is impervious to reason it is futile to attempt to “debate” him.
But he is exemplary as a showcase example of a pathetic stooge and shill.
Note that he doodles his empty rhetoric towards Mr Ruff while leaving OSS’ queries gathering dust.
\\][//
Ah! There he is again! Quick, isn’t there some sort of butterfly net we could use to keep Wright here for just a minute?
There are multiple posts you’ve run away from Wright, do you mind…ah shit, never mind, he’s flapped his beautiful wings and floated away again…
A.Wright,
You really do remind me of Bagdad Bob.
What baffles me Mr Ruff, is that these disinfopunks don’t even have the sense to get their bearings before honking their oinking horns. They come here on this blog which clearly is in the camp of the NOC position that it is impossible for a Plane to have hit the Pentagon.
Just being ignorant of who they are going to be arguing with is a stupid enough mistake; but then to compound that with utter ignorance as to the issue itself is so preposterous that it simply invites ridicule.
This idea that it is “rude” to be assertive of our secured position in the face of this nonsense offered by these clowns is jejune burlesque fartdancing.
\\][//
You’re a coward hiding behind a screen. I’ve actually met Gage and he was getting heat from the truthers on one hand and the scoffers on the other and not once did he lose his cool or professionalism. You use this forum to work out your pretty serious mental health issues. You have no tact, grace or style. You’re literally the Wizard of Oz. A cheese puff.
My name is Willy Whitten. Is your real name Owen Meister?
I am a public person. By that I mean I have a professional and personal reputation that can be found on the blogosphere by a few browser clicks.
I am not hiding anything. I am totally open and upfront.
If you have any expertise in the ‘mental health’ field, explain such to the readership. I don’t think catering parties is going to cut it.
As far as tact, grace and style; to determine such one would have to grasp ‘proximate cause vs. subsequent cause; and you obviously do not. Would you like an exposition of date and time stamped testimony given here?
It is entirely up to you Owen, how big a fool you will end up looking. Just keep this up and see.
\\][//
owenmeister,
You are the odd-man-out here. If you think not then you haven’t read the rest of the commentary here.
There is no need for me to make a detailed rebuttal to your bullshit insults, it is too obvious for all to see.
\\][//
Oh yeah, A Wright….more posts left gathering dust way up yonder.
AdamR, we all get carried away at times and discussion can be a little “rude” but you know what? Empty, posturing rants like we’ve seen here, from people who have no idea how offensive their arguments from ignorance actually are, can be just as, if not more insulting.
What’s mindboggling is that their soundbite is that the Pentagon issue “causes division”.
Between who?
Between sizeable groups who are at odds with the conclusions? No
Between researchers who disagree? No
Between two or more validly acceptable theories based on evidence that we can verify? No.
It’s based on two things
1. Incredulity
2. Lies and an insistence that we accept unverified “evidence” as being legit
First off, on the incredulity issue, which is tied to the second issue (lies, etc) is a very weak reason as it’s not based on any evidence whatsoever. A ground based controlled operation (ie explosives within the building – and outside) was necessary. Nobody, and I mean nobody witnessed the “directional damage path aircraft”
Secondly, is a flyover so “out there” compared to CD on live TV followed by Tower 7’s? I believe those buildings were CDed because of the evidence”.
Thirdly, the same people heading the campaign against the NOC testimony, the demonstration of the impossible feats allegedly carried out by a standard Boeing 757 and the Pentagon damage itself, ask us to accept, based on faith and faith alone, a set of “data” supplied after 5 years of being in their hands and without identification (and much more) by the same agencies that carried out and/or covered up the CDs in Manhattan! They’ve even “filled in the blanks” for the 9/11 Commission. An unofficial official story.
“Truthers”? Please…
Distinguishing
Let us attend to some basic conceptual distinctions in language, aspect and context.
Between, ‘assertion’ and ‘aggression’
Between, ‘brutally honest’ and ‘hostile’
Between, ‘principles’ and ‘ideals’
Between, ‘personal ethics’ and ‘morals and dogma’
Between, ‘the genuine’ and ‘the disingenuous’
Between, ‘proximate’ and ‘subsequent’
Between, ‘knowledge’ and ‘belief’
Between, ‘standing to reason’ and ‘using reason’
Between, ‘actual’ and ‘plausible’
Between, ‘fact’ and ‘supposition’
. . . . . . . .
This is not a lecture, but a call for contemplation…
\\][//
Owenmeister,
As it is likely you have no idea what the term ‘proximate cause’ means, perhaps a quote from the owner of this blog will give you a hint:
–“Owenmeister, you started your contribution here by accusing me of “baiting” and “diverting” and writing fluff – which were baseless and very insulting attacks. It is your pouting about civility that rings hollow to me.”
~Craig McKee on APRIL 13, 2014 AT 3:33 PM
So Proximate is defined as ‘precisely’ – in the context of ’cause’ it means; ‘the beginning of a sequence of events’.
In plain street language Owen, this means; ‘Who started the shit?’
In historical exposition here the answer to that is: YOU DID.
\\][//
So at exactly the two month mark Owen lost his bark.
An appropriate finale to the squatmaster’s routine.
See ya later agitator, after-while crock’a’bile.
\\][//
A Wright has the nerve to say to another poster here
Jesus. H. Christ.
Yup OSS,
That Wright is always good for some comic relief. Sometimes his routines get a little long and boring though…
\\][//
Distinguishing between, ‘assertion’ and ‘aggression’ and between, ‘brutally honest’ and ‘hostile’, are probably the two most important points in my list above.
So many people take assertiveness as an act of aggression, and take countermeasures that are based on emotional reactions rather than a thoughtful reflection on what they have been presented with. This is especially so when dealing with the term, “ignorance”. Too many people take umbrage at the term, as though they have been called an “idiot”. To point out that someone is coming from a place of ignorance is not even an insult, when it is pointed out with the clear evidences of ignorance in their argument.
If one goes back through the discussion I had with Peter, one can clearly see the progression and escalation of his anger, and his final outburst. An outburst that clearly was an embarrassment to himself, but one that he could not bring himself to face fully; as he finally apologized to Mr McKee “for loosing his cool”, but refused to extend that apology to myself or the rest of the forum here.
I had tried unsuccessfully to engage Peter in such a way as to show him that all he needed to do was to amend his ignorance by learning the known facts of the Pentagon, and if that was something he was unwilling to tackle, that it would be a simple matter for him to speak to issues he was well informed about. And it is not mere coincidence that this was the point at which his emotions cracked. Inside he knew I was right. He found himself exposed in a public place spouting off about things he had no knowledge of. Clear to all unbiased readers, and even himself. I only hope that upon reflection he learns something from this experience.
As to the biased readership who jumped in to “defend” Peter, I think we can all glean their motives. Owen clearly has an ax to grind, is belligerent and hypocritically so. Any others involved on that side of the divide will remain anonymous, to protect the forum from more anal hurlant.
\\][//
I wish that I had the know-how to sum up the pros and cons on the Pentagon “issue” in a single gif or short video. It would be handy to post and cut to the chase.
But OSS,
You have done such a splendid job of revealing what is a very elaborate case. Any lesser exposition would not be adequate to the material at hand.
You are to be commended, and have no reason to fret.
There are simply no magic words to convince the willingly deceived. No magic potion to awaken the enchanted.
We all take great pride in having you as a comrade in this grand adventure.
\\][//