28 pages of misdirection


Former Senator Bob Graham has been pushing for the declassification of the 28 pages.

Former Senator Bob Graham has been pushing for the declassification of the 28 pages.

September 18, 2015

By Dick Atlee, Ken Freeland, and Cheryl Curtiss (Special to Truth and Shadows)

For years the 9/11 Truth movement has been vainly pleading with mainstream media – and the “alternative” 9/11-Truth-rejecting media (which we’ll include for our purposes as mainstream) to cover any of the endless, obvious problems with any of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (OCT) tales we’ve been told. Now, all of a sudden, these same mainstream media, echoing prestigious players like former US Senator Bob Graham, are on the rampage about a “9/11 cover-up,” and are pushing for the release of 28 redacted pages from the 2002 Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee 9/11 Inquiry’s report! So…let’s all of us 9/11 Truthers jump aboard this fast moving train with both feet, right?

The Truth movement has gradually been gaining a foothold with the public; a growing number of people countenance some kind of government role in 9/11 and/or its cover-up. Suspicion has likewise grown about the role played by Bush-administration neocons and their Zionist bedfellows. After 15 years of staunch media refusal to report the flagrantly obvious holes in the various OCT stories we’ve been fed, why is this particular issue suddenly headline news? Why at this particular juncture? And how does it just happen to be spearheaded by one of the major contributors to the initial coverup?

Let’s examine the question of why the Deep State might want this story heated up to a fever pitch:

Misdirection

It is now commonly assumed among the public that those 28 pages in some way implicate the Saudi government in the events of 9/11, probably by financing the OCT-alleged hijackers. But consider the not unlikely possibility that the real players in 9/11 were not the Saudis, but rather the Bush neocons and their Israeli partners in crime. If they were looking for a way to deflect increasing public doubt about the OTC, blaming the Saudis would be an excellent choice.

Professional magicians employ misdirection – irrelevant bodily motions and various props – to distract the audience’s attention from what they’re really up to. Some of us in the movement consider the 28 Pages campaign to be just such a classical misdirection, so that the Saudis can be pulled out of the hat as the new scapegoats for 9/11. The benefits of such minor modification of the OTC outweigh its risks:

Risks and benefits

Sure, there’s some risk involved. Releasing the 28 pages (if they say what it is widely believed they will say) would, after all, make it obvious to the public that the government has been involved in some kind of cover-up. Hardly a surprise to the Truth movement, or to that majority of Americans who have lost confidence in the official narrative. But let’s remember that the government survived the Snowden/NSA disclosures virtually unscathed – Big Brother can now legally get all the info he wants, and polls have indicated that many Americans are absorbing this “new normal” by censoring themselves online. So another such embarrassment might be just as easily spun and exploited to the real perpetrators’ advantage.

On the other hand, the benefits of such misdirection would be huge:

  1. Everyone’s focus would now be on the Saudis, and off the Neocons and their Zionist bedfellows.
  2. The core OCT mythology would not only remain intact, but become solidified in the public mind (i.e., the catastrophic events of 9/11 were entirely the result of 19 hijackers’ actions, whose commandeered airliner crashes were the efficient cause of numerous fire-induced building collapses).

Why does this matter?

On the broadest level of geopolitics, the OCT myth is the basis for Western Islamophobia and the perpetual “Global War on Terror.” Blaming the Saudis only amplifies the assumption of “international Islamic terrorism,” still omitting all reference to Western players.

It is patently clear that the hijacker aspect of 9/11 is logically unsustainable (see below). Whether or not these men ever really existed, whether or not they behaved as devout Muslims, whether or not they were on the planes and whether or not they were financed by the Saudis, Pakistan’s ISI or anyone else – these may be useful questions for some purposes, but not for determining who was ultimately behind 9/11. Moving the public perception in the direction of blaming the Saudis for 9/11 because they supported the “hijackers” – the effect of 28 Pages campaign-support websites like hr14.org, – means abandoning the ever-widening trail of truth so relentlessly blazed by the 9/11 Truth movement, a trail leading close enough to their doors that the real culprits are beginning to feel some heat.

Yet movement veterans who should know better are falling all over each other to jump on the campaign bandwagon, and indeed, to be seen as leading the parade for “HR14,” the Congressional resolution demanding that the administration declassify those 28 pages! As 9/11 activists, they are well aware that the whole OCT story is a fabrication, and that the Saudis could not possibly have masterminded 9/11. Here’s their rationalization in a nutshell: Because the mainstream media are suddenly embracing the topic, any wide public revelation of a “cover-up” will eventually lead to an unraveling of the real cover-up, and therefore represents Truth movement’s first – and perhaps last – real opportunity to break into the wider realm of acceptable public opinion. But meanwhile, to “protect” the politicians (and the uninformed public?) whose support is needed for the passage of this bill, these websites, whilst making a pretense of advancing the cause of 9/11 Truth, implicitly embrace the long-debunked OCT (now twisted ever so slightly to incriminate the Saudis).

But consider the past fourteen years of consistent derogatory treatment by the corporate (and even many “alternative”) media of those who seriously question the basic OCT myth, and the media consolidation this represents – the control of these sources by corporate directors and the Deep State agents who write their playbook. These people are not fools – they don’t launch a propaganda ploy without Plans B, C, etc. in place for potential damage control. Based on the mainstream media’s track record of the past fourteen years, the chances of their running away with this story in a way that genuinely promotes 9/11 Truth seem vanishingly small. And the Achilles’ heel of such an overly optimistic hope is that the solid research and evidence gathered by the Truth movement fall outside (and contradict) the Saudi-financed hijackers-dunnit scenario, so the media is unlikely to seriously reference any of it in its treatment of any forthcoming 28-pages “revelation.”

Looking ahead, where will this leave the Truth movement? How is it going respond if the 28 pages say exactly what people are expecting them to say, and movement leaders are credited for their release? Will these same activists now tooting the horn for hr14 be able to credibly turn around and say “Wait, this information is misleading because ‘the real 9/11’ was something far beyond the abilities of the Saudis to manage!”? And will the media do an about-face with them, and obligingly lavish coverage on what it has complicitly covered up since 9/11?

About those “hijackers”

Our position on the irrelevance of Saudi “financing” admittedly hinges on the question of the alleged “hijackers.” If these alleged 19 hijacked and flew the jetliners in question, Saudi involvement might be argued to have significance (albeit still not the key to 9/11 perpetration). But there are a host of reasons for rejecting the entire OCT hijack scenario:

  • The “hijackers’” publicly documented behavior was not that of devout Muslims [1]
  • There is no credible time-stamped video record of them boarding planes, much less arriving at the departing airports. [2]
  • The stories told about Muhammed Atta and whomever it was who allegedly accompanied him to Portland, Maine changed constantly. [3]
  • There is no original flight manifest showing Middle Eastern names. [4]
  • The FBI came up with a list of hijackers within just a few hours of the first 9/11 event, a number of whom they replaced with substitutes shortly afterwards. [5]
  • The transmission of cockpit comments of “hijackers” heard by the control towers could have been generated anywhere.
  • The simple button-press sequence (“squawk”) signaling a hijacking was not executed on any of the four planes. [6]
  • The initially-alleged cellphone calls that reported hijackings in progress were proven in most cases to have been technically impossible; most were later changed to on-board phone calls, some from planes that didn’t have on-board phones, and some calls (per the FBI) were never completed or didn’t exist – particularly the only one referencing “box cutters.” [7]
  • The conditions in the planes’ passenger cabins that would have existed under the alleged flight behavior of the planes at the time of the calls were completely inconsistent with the background sounds on the calls and the behavior of the alleged callers [8].
  • With one exception, the alleged “pilots” had never flown a jet-liner; one had flown a simulator of a different plane with a completely different cockpit layout; the one who allegedly made the almost-impossible maneuver over the Pentagon had been declared by his instructors to be unable to even fly a single-engine plane. [9]
  • The claims of finding a “hijacker” passport unscathed on the ground in NYC, and undamaged red bandanas (indicative of the wrong Muslim sect, in any case) in Pennsylvania, given the alleged physical reality of those crashes, are absurd on their face. [10]
  • With respect to the question of how 9/11 could have happened without human hijackers, it is vital to note that as of 2001, the technology for complete remote takeover, isolation and control (takeoff, flying, landing) of commercial jetliners was well advanced and had been fully tested in the types of aircraft involved in 9/11, and the air traffic auto-pilot navigation lanes in the sky were precise to within a few feet. [11]

The list goes on. . . As one considers each piece of evidence, the chance that “hijackings” took place approaches zero. The real role of the alleged hijackers is not yet known – those with documented flying lessons may very well have been unwitting patsies. In any case, the question of who might have been financing their stay in this country, Saudi or otherwise, is at best tangential to the larger picture of what really happened on 9/11. No matter what the motive, then, any attempt to persuade people that the final answer to the question of 9/11 perpetration lies in this direction can only be construed as dangerous misdirection. The real price already being paid by the Truth movement is the subversion of unwitting activists who help promote such meretricious campaign propaganda, thereby betraying the movement’s hard-won, fact-based alternative perspective.

The 28 Pages campaign: 9/11 Truth bonanza or limited hangout?

 Our own concern about the 28 Pages campaign was triggered by the emergence of several websites supporting it, which hold out the promise that the 28 pages will answer the question of who was really behind 9/11 (and that this will turn out to be Saudi Arabia). Examples are 28pages.org and most especially hr14.org. As the latter is controlled by a veteran 9/11 truther, we appealed to him as fellow activists – an ad hoc group of 9/11 activists sent him a letter critiquing the website from the standpoint of 9/11 Truth, requesting specific revisions of its message. Because his reply failed to substantially address the issues we raised, we have now published it as an open letter.

We are hardly the first to find serious problems with the direction of the 28 Pages campaign. Perhaps the first notable critique came from the blog of Kevin Ryan; whilst this early criticism was on the milder side, its excoriation of the leadership of the 28 Pages campaign – Bob Graham and his “CIA protege” Porter Goss – is not to be missed! Years earlier, in fact, Ryan had opined in Washington’s Blog: “Those redacted pages, and much of the 9/11 Commission report that followed, have always seemed to be a kind of ‘Get into Saudi Arabia free’ card for the powers that be.” Given the recent sea change in Saudi foreign policy – its nearer alignment with Russia and the BRICS bloc – such a prospect cannot be overlooked. What better way to incite public animosity towards the Saudis than by playing the tried and true 9/11 blame game?

Expanding on Ryan’s disquieting report, Professor Michel Chossudovsky, of Globalresearch.ca, wrote:

Calling for the official release and publication of the 28 page classified section of the joint inquiry report pertaining to Saudi Arabia is an obvious red-herring. The objective is to confuse matters, create divisions within the 9/11 Truth movement and ultimately dispel the fact that the 9/11 attacks were a carefully organized False Flag event which was used to declare war on Afghanistan as well as usher in sweeping anti-terrorist legislation.

Both the Congressional inquiry as well the 9/11 Commission report are flawed, their objective was to sustain the official narrative that America was under attack on September 11, 2001. And Graham’s role in liaison with the CIA, is “damage control” with a view to protecting those who were behind the demolition of the WTC towers as well [as] sustaining the Al Qaeda legend, which constitutes the cornerstone of US military doctrine under the so-called “Global War on Terrorism”.

As the 28 Pages campaign unfolds, such scathing criticism has proven remarkably prescient. We urge our fellow 9/11 Truth activists to take it to heart, and to approach the 28 Pages campaign juggernaut, if at all, with extreme caution, so long as it faithfully clings to the OTC . Caveat emptor!!

  1. Agents of terror leave their mark on Sin City / Las Vegas workers recall the men they can’t forget; Kevin Fagan, SFGate, 4 Oct 2001 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/04/MN102970.DTL * Terrorists partied with hooker at Hub-area hotel; Dave Wedge, Boston Herald, 10 Oct 2001 (retrieved from Wayback Machine 11 Sep 2015) http://web.archive.org/web/20011010224657/http://www.bostonherald.com/attack/investigation/ausprob10102001.htm * Suspects’ actions don’t add up; Jody Benjamin, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 16 Sep 2001 (retrieved from Wayback Machine 11 Sep 2015) http://web.archive.org/web/20010916150533/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-warriors916.story * Welcome To Terrorland; Daniel Hopsicker (Trine Day, 2004) http://www.amazon.com/dp/0970659164/
  2. Point Video-2: Was the Airport Video of the Alleged AA 77 Hijackers Authentic?: Official 9/11 Videotaped Evidence; Consensus 911: The Best Evidence Panel http://www.consensus911.org/point-video-2/ * Point Video-1: The Alleged Security Videos of Mohamed Atta during a Mysterious Trip to Portland, Maine, September 10-11, 2001; Consensus 911: The Best Evidence Panel http://www.consensus911.org/point-video-1/
  3. 9/11 Contradictions: Mohamed Atta’s Mitsubishi and His Luggage; David Ray Griffin, Global Research, 9 May 2008 http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-contradictions-mohamed-atta-s-mitsubishi-and-his-luggage/8937
  4. The FBI took control of the original flight manifests and still refuses to release them, while the airlines defer to the FBI. It has been said that the following versions had the hijackers removed to spare the feelings of the victims’ relatives. The reader must draw his/her own conclusions. The following from CNN on 17 Sep 2001 were retrieved from Wayback Machine 11 Sep 2015 ) * Flight 11: https://web.archive.org/web/20010917033844/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html * Flight 175: https://web.archive.org/web/20010917034224/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html * Flight 77: https://web.archive.org/web/20010917033858/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html * Flight 93: https://web.archive.org/web/20010917033913/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/UA93.victims.html
  5. Not a shred of evidence that any 9/11 ‘hijackers’ boarded any planes; Craig McKee, Truth and Shadows https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/hijackers-did-not-board-planes/
  6. Point Flt-1: A Claim Regarding Hijacked Passenger Jets; Consensus 911: The Best Evidence Panel http://www.consensus911.org/point-flt-1/
  7. * Project Achilles Report Parts One, Two and Three; A.K. Dewdney, 23 Jan – 19 Apr 2003 http://physics911.net/projectachilles/ * Point PC-3: Cell Phone Calls From the Planes: The First Official Account; Consensus 911: The Best Evidence Panel http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-3/ * September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor, Part 1; Massimo Mazzucco, YouTube [at 1:38:35] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk&t=5915 * Point PC-4: Cell Phone Calls from the Planes: The Second Official Account; Consensus 911: The Best Evidence Panel http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-4/ * Methodical Illusion Series with Rebekah Roth, Part 2 [1:57:50]; Wake Up To the Truth (BlogTalk Radio); 19 Nov 2014 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags/2014/11/19/methodical-illusion-series-w-rebekah-roth-part-2 * Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials; David Ray Griffin, Global Research, 1 Apr 2008 http://www.globalresearch.ca/ted-olson-s-report-of-phone-calls-from-barbara-olson-on-9-11-three-official-denials/8514
  8. Methodical Illusion Series with Rebekah Roth; Wake Up To the Truth (BlogTalk Radio); 17 Nov 2014 * Part 4 [17:50-1:09:50] http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags/2014/11/21/methodical-illusion-series-wrebekah-roth-part-4 * Part 3 [1:05:23-1:17:30, 1:28:00-1:31:15, 1:42:00-1:45:20] http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags/2014/11/20/methodical-illusion-series-w-rebekah-roth-part-3 * Part 1 [35:35-55:35] http://www.blogtalkradio.com/911falseflags/2014/11/18/methodical-illusion-series-wrebekah-roth-part-1
  9. Hani Hanjour: 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire; What ReallyHappened http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hanjour.html * September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor, Part 1; Massimo Mazzucco, YouTube [at 1:07:06] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk&t=4026
  10. FBI agent Dan Coleman explains how the passport of 9/11 hijacker Satam Al Suqami was “found”; 9/11 Blogger, 14 Nov 2011 http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-14/fbi-agent-dan-coleman-explains-how-passport-911-hijacker-satam-al-suqami-was-found * Jihadist bandana – the “in” fashion for fall; Pilots for 9/11 Truth, 8 Nov 2006 http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t1383.html
  11. Plausibility of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated by GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems; Aidan Monaghan (with extensive references), Oct 2008 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf

Dick Atlee is a member of the Maine 9/11 Truth group.

Ken Freeland is a member of Houston 9/11 Truth (http://houston911truth.net/) and is facilitator of the monthly 9/11 Truth and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference (http://houston911truth.net/9-11TruthTeleconferenceArchives.html).

 Cheryl Curtiss is a member of the Connecticut 9/11 Truth group and host of the radio show “9/11 Wake-Up Call” produced at the University of Hartford and archived at http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/4212.

228 comments

  1. I don’t know if we “question” so much anymore. It’s more that we just call bullsh!t on the official story and all B.S. versions of it, including the idea of blaming the whole thing on the Saudis. There are so many lies in this story that it might be best to trash it in its entirety and start from scratch to try to determine the actual truth.

  2. ABsolutely right ! No way 911 is a ‘Saudi alone’ operation. No way. those papers were left in the record [REDACTED] on purpose. Zelikow is the public mythmaker. Controlled every part. So that was deliberate.
    Professional media are the media arm of deepstate. Whichever direction they herd, we better be looking in the other. Good work.and Kevin Ryan and Michel Chossudovsky. This is very clear.

    1. You know, Fahrenheit911 was the vehicle nthat got this misdirection going. I went to see it with two hot chicks, at the same time the Metallica movie was showing.

      I should have enjoyed myself and saved Moore’s shitefest for another day.

  3. Well done! Progressives on the fringes seem to glom onto these limited hangouts repeatedly. This is an important antidote for such folks…and they DO listen! Also this one seems worse than most, as the writers point out.

  4. “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”~Marcus Tullius Cicero
    \\][//

    1. I would note that this quote by Cicero, not only applies to nations, but also movements such as the 9/11 Truth Movement. And just who are the moles and traitors within our movement?
      This is a heady issue, for the intent of a mole is not so easily determined as the agenda would seem. The outright shills such as Agent Wright or Agent Smith, are easy to identify. But the mole, who pretends at presenting the truth, is more subtle, clever and ingenious.

      I have presented facts to do with some that I consider moles, the most noteworthy being; Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, and Frank Legge, the bulk of the contributors at Veterans Today, headed by Gordon Duff are certainly suspect. They promote the more outlandish “theories that are easily proven as disinformation by close study. But they have many followers in the movement who are not so careful in their analysis.

      I have long railed against the “Nukes at WTC” brigades, as well as those who propagate the Judy Wood DEW junk, the “No-Planes” at the WTC nonsense, and the related “Video Fakery” camp of Simon Shack. There are also those who promote the nonsense of “Projected Holograms”, another technical absurdity.

      Of course those of us here on T&S are well schooled in the chicanery of the moles and dupes of the anti-CIT cult.

      We are in fact divided amongst ourselves as a result of this tempest of bullshit coming from within the 9/11 Truth community itself. As Dorothy said, “I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore Toto.”
      \\][//

      1. I’m thinking more along the lines of Jerome Hauer, and Paul Breemer, Rudy Giuliani , Bernard Kerick as agents of subterfuge and complicity. Speculation and Hypothesis after the fact, no matter if find them personally daft is no crime. Appearing on the news on 9/11/01, within hours of the events, knowing that fire was why the towers came down and by whom, discounting explosives in a news conference , prior knowledge of building destruction is who I prefer to be skeptical about.

        1. Yes Bardo76, those you mention are obvious shills and likely suspects. I was speaking to the moles within the movement itself, which is a much more subtle problem to address.
          \\][//

          1. I totally concur with what you say hybridrogue1. Fetzer is, in my opinion, one of the main guys who brought down the 9/11 truth movement around 2007. He created an elite group, and then decimated it with help, possibly with Steven Jones.

            He is a master of bluster, and goes into infinite detail about things like the JFK assassination or 9/11 without going after the guys who did it. He distracts people from the real truth about these events. (Ignore what he now says about zionism. He never said a thing about that for years.)

            So, therefore, we also have to consider Kevin Barrett suspect as well. I feel that he has cosied himself into the Muslim community to keep an eye on them.

            Also suspect: Christopher Bollyn. How can someone go on the run from the police, but then apparently on next to no money swan around Europe (with his family) for years … and then come back to the US … and … nothing happens to him … at all.

            Also can speak Hebrew, lived on a kibbutz, and there just happens to be an “Elbert Bollyn” who lived in the same neighbourhood as him in Chicago (before he went on the lam) … who is Jewish and went to a local synagogue there. Hmmm.

            (I suspect Elbert was/ … if he is still alive … Bollyn’s father. I believe Elbert’s wife also went to the same synagogue).

            Anyhow, loads of people past and present are probably moles/agents/whatever. The 9/11 truth community was probably set up by the infamous powers that be in the first place, and set to self destruct after a few years.

            Best wishes

            H Price.

            ps also have to put Les Visible into the grey basket now. There is a post on the blog jeffrense.org where someone accuses him of being a Rosicrucian Freemason. It is purely one line, and Visible goes on a short rant … very touchy, I thought, and just a bit over the top for a guy so into love and peace.

            1. curiousegypt123, you say;

              “He created an elite group, and then decimated it with help, possibly with Steven Jones.”

              The only thing I would clear up for you here is that the original group of ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth” was uncle Fetzer’s idea. He contacted Jones when he read some of Jones’ papers and suggested an organization of ‘scholars’ to form a united front in the truth movement. It went okay for several months until Fetzer began promoting what Jones felt were ideas unsupportable by the science purporting to support them. The final straw for Jones seems to have been a dispute with Fetzer over his support of Judy Wood” Dew hypothesis., The rift grew and within a short while Jones decided to depart and form the Journal of 9/11 Truth, which shared a web address with Scholars for a short time. As we’vr seen, most of the serious scientists went with Jones. Now the gaggle of loons at Scholars is all that is left there. And they have a close relationship with Gordon Duff and Veterans Today; another nest of moles in the ever fragmenting movement.
              That is the general history as I recall it off the top of my head at this time.
              . . .
              As per Visible, I was a fan of his lyrical style of prose for quite some time, but I got bored with his “Mr Apocalypse” jango very quickly and lost interest years ago.
              \\][//

            2. Well I know Christopher Bollyn personally and have talked with him for hours about 9/11 and the Zionist connection to 9/11. Let me state now for the record that your points about Christopher are way off base and full of misinformation. He gives small talks all over the USA (except the state where the police tried to ruin his life which he avoids like the plague) and generally stays with friends while on the road. He makes some money by selling his books at the talks which by the way he published and printed himself. He is not a racist nor is he against Jewish people, he simply exposes the FACT of Zionists involvement in the crimes of 9/11. Now Christopher can speak for himself and I assure you he is not difficult to find or to talk to yourself.

              As to Steven Jones I find your suggestion that he was somehow in on the wrecking of the truth movement with Fetzer to be ridiculous. Fetzer did the damage all by himself and has always worked to undermine the strongest evidence in not only 9/11 but also in the JFK Assassination and Sandy Hook etc. In 9/11 Fetzer attempts to undermine the CD evidence by promoting mini nukes and other crap like that. In the JFK matter he attempts to undermine the Zapruder film. etc. Fetzer is the problem not Steven Jones.

                1. sockpuppet2012,

                  You will note that no one here denies the participation of Israel in the events of 9/11. I certainly do not deny the more than ample evidence of such, and the connections between Israel and the neocons. What I have consistently attempt to point out is that Israel is only one actor of many that participated in this event. The US military, especially the Air Force connected with the NORAD system, were certainly deeply involved. This event was perpetrated by what is essentially the deep state, which is a matrix of political, corporatist, and military interests, combining the Nazi faction of the Bush-Skull & Bones cabal, with the Zionist faction, and all with the object of Political Power as their main agenda.

                  Again core of political Zionism has nothing to do with religious Judaism, that is a mask for what is in essence, Realpolitik, built upon the principles of “Might is Right” and “The Ends Justify The Means”, this meme transcends any ethnic or religious persuasion, and is the goal of any tyrannical objective: Hegel’s “the State as God” paradigm.

                  Now to the matter of the different photo you used on the YouTube version of RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast. Was this some thinly veiled attempt to try to hide the fact that you are the same poster? Are you the girl, or are you the boy or in fact the girly boy… Lol
                  \\][//

                  1. hybridrogue1 said:

                    “Was this some thinly veiled attempt to try to hide the fact that you are the same poster?”

                    No, you blind self-absorbed fool…..that’s just another figment of your imagination!

                    I have had my YouTube account for seven years with my Avatar as the heroic Sylvia Stolz, the “German Joan of Arc”.

                    On WordPress and other Forums I have another hero of mine as my Avatar, namely…..the heroic Danny Jowenko.

                    “This event was perpetrated by what is essentially the deep state, which is a matrix of political, corporatist, and military interests, combining the Nazi faction of the Bush-Skull & Bones cabal, with the Zionist faction, and all with the object of Political Power as their main agenda”

                    It’s the Nazis…..it’s the Nazis!!!

                    You think Adolf Eichmann or Joseph Mengele had anything to do with it?…..how about Blondi?

                    1. “It’s the Nazis…..it’s the Nazis!!!
                      You think Adolf Eichmann or Joseph Mengele had anything to do with it?…..how about Blondi?”~sockpuppet2012

                      You react with hyperbole, read carefully I said:

                      This event was perpetrated by what is essentially the deep state, which is a matrix of political, corporatist, and military interests, combining the Nazi faction of the Bush-Skull & Bones cabal, with the Zionist faction, and all with the object of Political Power as their main agenda.

                      I did NOT say, “It’s the Nazis…..it’s the Nazis!!!”

                      Are you Mossad Mr/Mrs Sockpuppet?
                      \\][//

                    2. “Here’s Agent Whitten’s latest flash of brilliance”~Mrs Sockpuppet on RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast, YouTube forum

                      So you want to continue this game of calling me “Agent Whitten”?

                      An “agent” for who or what? Are you seriously going to contend that I am ‘Iranian Intelligence’?
                      Saudi Intelligence? Qatar Intelligence? Perhaps Pakistani Intelligence?

                      Who are the most numerous and deeply hidden agenteur in Amerika today? Who is more likely to be a Sunsteinian Cognitive Infiltrator? The answer is clear, the Mossad.
                      So if one of us is an agent the odds are astronomically in favor that you are.
                      Not expecting an admission, but I put it to you directly once again, are you Mossad?

                      I guarantee I am not an intelligence agent of any sort, and only a lunatic or someone who actually is an agent would assert such. Your profile fits the bill much better than mine.
                      Everyone here knows my real name. You are effectively anonymous, you could be absolutely ANYBODY.
                      \\][//

                    3. hybridrogue1 said:

                      “So you want to continue this game of calling me “Agent Whitten”?”

                      “An “agent” for who or what? Are you seriously going to contend that I am ‘Iranian Intelligence’?
                      Saudi Intelligence? Qatar Intelligence? Perhaps Pakistani Intelligence?”

                      No, Willy…..this is just smoke and mirrors you’re throwing up here; when one is accused of being an “Agent” or a Gatekeeper” in the context of 911, it is clear to any imbecile that what is meant is an “Agent” or “Gatekeeper” for the mass murderers and world destroyers, not for the Eskimos or the midget basketball players.

                      “Who are the most numerous and deeply hidden agenteur in Amerika today?”

                      Jews…..hands down!

                      “Who is more likely to be a Sunsteinian Cognitive Infiltrator? The answer is clear, the Mossad”

                      Or a Hasbarat, or a JIDF Agent.

                      “So if one of us is an agent the odds are astronomically in favor that you are”

                      Nope, you struck out on that one, Willy.
                      You bear all the marks of a Gatekeeper, whilst I bear none of the marks.

                      I post very few comments…..I type with my right index finger.

                      You post THOUSANDS of comments ALL hours of the night and day, every day…..year in year out!.
                      You type very fast with not very many spelling mistakes, good grammar and punctuation.

                      “Not expecting an admission, but I put it to you directly once again, are you Mossad?”

                      No.

                      “I guarantee I am not an intelligence agent of any sort, and only a lunatic or someone who actually is an agent would assert such”

                      Only a lunatic would say that only a lunatic would say that.

                      “Your profile fits the bill much better than mine”

                      And what is my “profile”?

                      “Everyone here knows my real name”

                      No, they don’t…..no one knows your real name…..they only know the name you use on the internet.

                      “You are effectively anonymous, you could be absolutely ANYBODY”

                      And so could you.

                      A person’s “profile” doesn’t mean squat…..what people are judged by is the content of their comments, articles, or books.

                    4. Now, I suggested disengagement between I and your Zionist pal, Martinez on the other site, because I didn’t want to go round’n’round on this type of carousel. So I am suggesting the same thing here Sockpuppet; let’s drop it, and waste no more space and time here.
                      \\][//

                    5. hybridrogue1 said:

                      “Now, I suggested disengagement between I and your Zionist pal, Martinez on the other site”

                      “Zionist pal”?…..that’s pure projection, Willy.

                      “because I didn’t want to go round’n’round on this type of carousel. So I am suggesting the same thing here Sockpuppet; let’s drop it, and waste no more space and time here”

                      There’s plenty of time and space here, Willy.
                      The reason you want to disengage is because you are being exposed.

                      I have NEVER seen you want to disengage.

                    6. Sockpuppet claims that I have never offered to disengage from conversations here. This is not true, I have several times attempted to prevent one of these T&S threads from going too far, and overwhelming the original topic that the thread is about.

                      However, it could be said that this topic we are involved with among ourselves here would fit nicely into the overall topic of the thread.

                      My reasons for disengaging with your pal Mr Martinez, was not as you asserted, “because I was losing” the argument, but because Mr Martinez’s entire argument is based on ad hominem, his opening remarks against Graeme McQueen were accusatory, AT THE MAN; ad hominem.

                      I refuse to be trifled with Sockpuppet, I will not be accused of being an “agent’ by you or anyone else. So we won’t be discussing the merits of the case one way or another of who were the perpetrators were who did 9/11, you and your smart-ass pal Martinez, have forfeited that argument by immediately launching into charges of that Mr McQueen, and I, and Webster Tarpley are “Zionist agents”.

                      So now the point becomes just who is the more likely agent. You claim that nobody knows my real name. This is a complete lie. I have a web presence as a professional artist that is well established. I have been a special effects artist, and a fine art sculptor in bronze, and have many pieces of work that can be viewed on the Internet, just type my name Willy Whitten into your browser.

                      However you as a sockpuppet are in fact anonymous. Unless and until you are willing to reveal your actual name you will admit that you are in fact posting anonymously on the internet or you are clearly lying. The point that you have the right to post anonymously on the web is not the issue – I agree that people have that right if they so choose it.

                      The facts are then, you are an anonymous sockpuppet, and I am a known individual by the name of Willy Whitten. Is that clear to you now?
                      ….. ….. …..
                      Now as per my counter charges that you and your comrade Martinez are the more likely Zionist agents, I offer this history:

                      ZIONIST FALSE FLAGS
                      A Historical Perspective

                      What was the very first Zionist attack in Israel? The King David Hotel bombing was a false flag attack carried out on Monday July 22, 1946 by the militant Zionist underground organization Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.

                      The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The attack initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine). It was conceived as a response to Operation Agatha (a series of widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, conducted by the British authorities) and was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948).

                      Disguised as Arabs, the Irgun planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, whose southern wing housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters. The Irgun sent warnings by telephone, including one to the hotel’s own switchboard, which the staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities. A possible reason why the warning was ignored was that hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time. From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day. Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm, and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but no evacuation was ordered. The ensuing explosion caused the collapse of the western half of the southern wing of the hotel. Some of the inflicted deaths and injuries occurred in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings. Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings and the reasons why the hotel was not evacuated.

                      Yes Zionists in the guise of Arabs. This has continued to be the Zionist – Mossad MO, up to this very day. I submit that Brandon Martinez is a Mossad double agent using the same MO to disrupt the truth movement__coming on strong against “the Zionists”, when in fact he IS a Zionist himself. And perhaps this is the same game that the sockpuppet is playing on us at T&S.

                      “Zios usually resort to ad hom attacks, insults and vulgarities when losing an argument. If you’re not an Israeli agent then you may wish to sign up as one because you’re doing their bidding.”~Brandon Martinez
                      See: Brandon Martinez, on the RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast, YouTube forum.
                      \\][//

              1. Adam Ruff has lost his way, speaking out about issues where his ignorance is palpable. What in the world does he know about the Zapruder film or JFK? I have three 500-page books including the best research from the best students of the assassination, where we have proven (there and elsewhere) that the film was massively edited and revised to conceal the true causes of the death of JFK from the public. One is entitled, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).

                Not only does he know nothing about JFK, but he is at least equally ignorant about 9/11 and the proof that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a nuclear event. It is embarrassing that he makes these ponderous assertions with NOTHING TO BACK HIM UP. Like many others here, he seems to trade on rumor and speculation. He does not cite my work but delivers smears for which there is no evidence. That also occurs even in the JFK community. Check this, for example:

                “Jim Fetzer responds to Jim DiEugenio’s attack on his research”
                http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/03/jfk-jim-fetzer-replies-to-jim.html

                Now if Adam thinks I have something wrong, then let him identify what I claim and why I claim it (to insure he actually understands my position), then explain what he thinks I have wrong and how he knows. None of those attacking me here make the least effort to do that. They go off half -cocked based upon their own massive ignorance, rumor and speculation. I issue the demand: if you think I have something wrong, prove it! Otherwise, you are displaying your own ignorance.

                1. Veterans today has members who openly admit that a large percentage of what they themselves say is disinformation. So I do not need to look any further than that to discredit you Jim. Also I am not your trained seal and I do not jump through hoops just because you put them out there. I think you are right about a few things and totally full of shit on others. You are a classic operative you put out about 80% truth and mix it with 20% disinformation. I simply ignore you Jim since you work directly with people who admit they are lying I assume you are too.

                  1. You are such an ignoramus you don’t even know that Duff and I had a falling out last April (a year ago, if you check it) over my publishing about JADE HELM 15 and his desire that I not. He booted me off Veterans Today and thereafter deleted all 150 articles I had published since joining the magazine in 2011. As with regard to other issues where I have pointed out your stunning absence of knowledge, you have no idea what you are talking about. To take me to task for being a member of a journal that I left over a year ago demonstrates your incompetence. I have to agree with you on one point, however: one of us is a complete and total piece of shit!

                  2. Moreover, you have yet to show that I am wrong ABOUT EVEN A SINGLE POINT ACROSS MY RESEARCH ON JFK, 9/11, WELLSTONE, SANDY HOOK OR THE BOSTON BOMBING. You love to shoot off your mouth, but you are so incompetent at research you miss the boat OVER TIME. Give me one example where you claim I am wrong. Cite what I say and why I say it, then explain what I have wrong and how you know. You are a complete clown and a horse’s ass.

                  3. Since you claim that I put out about 80% truth and 20% disinformation, which is which? Which of my work falls into the 80% truth category and which into the 20% disinformation category? And since you are advancing this and would be an idiot to make such a claim if you did not know my work, it should be effortless for you to explain which is which. And when you claim some of my work is “disinformation”, be sure to spell out and explain how you know. Otherwise. you would come across as an arrogant blowhard who has no idea what he’s talking about. I am calling your bluff.

                    1. I figured you would wimp out. You don’t know my stuff and make up criticisms based on what you hear from others. I doubt you have had an original thought in your life. I have already linked to two articles in my longer response to these unfounded attacks. So here’s one more for you:

                      “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”
                      http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/911-truth-will-out-vancouver-hearings-ii.html

                      Start with this, especially the USGS dust sample evidence of a host of elements that would not be there–especially in the quantities and correlations found–had this not been a nuclear event. Then turn to the articles by Don Fox and by Dennis Cimino and explain what we have wrong.

                    2. Wow Jim I am so hurt by your goading that now I am going to crumble and fall right into your clever trap! NOT!

                    3. Adam Ruff, you have exposed yourself as a complete and total fraud. You don’t know any of my work. You had no basis to attack me. You thought you were being “cool” to join with others who have attacked me in the past. You did not even know that Gordon Duff, whom I despise, and I had a falling out over a year ago. Not only do you know nothing about my work on JFK or 9/11 or Wellstone, but you don’t even seem to know that I have published three books of expert studies since I split with Veterans Today: AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER (2015); NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015; banned by amazon.com); and AND NOBODY DIED IN BOSTON, EITHER (2016). One of the obvious signs that you were faking it is that my research is COLLABORATIVE because I bring together experts on different aspects of cases in awareness of the limitations of my own personal competence. You, however, just fake it, acting as if you were an authority and in the position to appraise my work when that is not the case. I am sorry, but I cannot abide phonies, liars and frauds, where you appear to be a stellar instance.

                    4. Sorry, Professor. I can’t resist asking… And I am quite sincere in my question:

                      What is your take on why so many people have taken antagonistic positions towards you? What is it that created this “onslaught” of criticism of you and your work?

                    5. Well, you are a good example of someone who lacks the objectivity to evaluate research from a person whom you do not personally like. But most of my conflicts (with Think Thompson, Robert Groden, Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, and a host of others arise because I call them out for ignoring available, relevant evidence and basing their conclusions on selected portions.

                      Tink Thompson, for example, dismissed objective proof the film had been altered on the basis of the official chronology of its chain of possession, ignoring that those who had possession of the film were complicit in getting it to those who edited it.

                      Robert Groden was a special consultant to the HSCA and reported to them that the man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady based upon his purported comparison of the patterns of the shirts they were wearing, which was contradicted by later research.

                      Steve Jones appears to be an expert on certain types of nuclear processes, where some of them appear to have been used to blow apart the Twin Towers. He did not want Scholars to research alternative theories that would expose the mechanisms used.

                      Kevin Ryan was so upset by Mark Hightower and my exposure that nanothermite can’t cut it that he launched an absurd attack upon me for rebutting an article by Robert Parry claiming that 9/11 research was “a parlor game”. He (Ryan) had no idea what he was talking about.

                      Do you need more examples? OF COURSE I am too frank, open and direct in my criticisms, because they are perpetrating frauds by deceiving the American people. They know better. I have an abiding disdain for liars, cheaters and frauds. When I am shown I have made mistakes, I respond by correcting them. They do not. I expose them and they don’t like it. Neither do you.

                    6. David, Has it escaped your attention that neither Judy Wood nor A&E911 will talk about who was responsible and why? Think about it. There are three overarching questions about 9/11: WHO? HOW? and WHY? They both only talk about HOW (and in their own different ways, in hopelessly inadequate fashion). Neither will talk about WHO and WHY. Give that just a bit of thought and consideration.

                  4. If you won’t do it for Dr. Fetzer Ruff, could you do it for me?

                    I want to know the 20% that you two disagree on. Jim was an early pioneer for the cause, and if he joined the dark side, I would like to know.

                    1. Travis, One shill citing another doesn’t cut it, either. He is obviously incapable of sorting things out for himself. Some of these people are like The Force: They can have a powerful effect on the weak minded. Adam Ruff is weak-minded, so he cites another fraud as his source. Disgusting!

                    2. Travis, you are sincere, he is not. This is the typical behavior of a troll: to attack someone who has done more and better research than have they to gain some perverse ego gratification. I have cited these below as well, but just to make it easy for him to track them down, they are:

                      Don Fox / Did Israel nuke the WTC on 9/11?
                      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/

                      Dennis Cimino / 9/11: A World Swirling in a Volcano of Lies
                      http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/911-world-swirling-in-volcano-of-lies.html

                      He won’t respond because he can’t. He is not a serious person but a game player. So now we have set the frame of the debate. I have offered three articles as sources of support for the hypothesis that the Twin Towers were taken down by nukes. Let’s see what he has to say.

                    3. Wow I guess I better respond or the whole world will see that Jim Fetzer was right all along! Bait rejected Jim.

                    4. This is the typical behavior of a troll: to attack someone who has done more and better research than have they to gain some perverse ego gratification. – Profesoor Fetzer

                      Haha… This is like the pot calling the Brita jug black….

                    5. Dave, not to impugn your intelligence, but what are the odds that I would be wrong about any of these matters, much less 20%, when I am doing COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH with numerous experts in fields where I am not myself an expert. Have you studied any of my books on JFK or 9/11 or Wellstone or Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, for example? And if you have, is there anything you think we have wrong? Please spell it out, because I would hate to think that you are one more mediocrity who has nothing serious to add but smears like those of Adad Ruff.

                    6. Professor… I feel that ruffadam has set up an inaccurate representation of your work by quantifying it with numbers, and has provided you with a hammer to keep banging, and reply multiple times with insults, condescension and accusations, prompting him and the readers here to bow In front of your huge body of work, as you usually do.

                      I do not share his opinion. My wise-ass remark was directed at your calling ruffadam and HR1 shills and trolls.

                      My issue is not that you have erroneous conclusions, it is about how you get there, how often you support outrageous and unscientific claims, how often you change your mind, your overall track record of jumping on every conspiracy theory, the relationships you have built and destroyed, affiliations you have made, and the extremely divisive affect you have had in any reasonable and impartial discussion that could have taken place under your watch, or with your involvement. Not to mention that I really do not care for your argumentative style

                      Even then, I always stop short of calling you a shill or a troll, because I simply do not know whether or not you have any ulterior motives, or that you are doing all this consciously. I just decline to go into any rabbit hole with the rope that you dangle… That’s all.

                      I hope that answers your question.

                    7. David, I am 75 years old. I do not suffer fools gladly. There have been massive attacks on me ad infinitum since I began research on JFK in 1992. My review of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Judy Wood has drawn over 7,000 (SEVEN THOUSAND) comments, almost all of them from Judy groupies. I am sick of it. None of you has shown I have anything wrong. I could give a rat’s ass if you don’t like my personal style. Frankly, for you to interject when you CANNOT SHOW THAT WE–AND I HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF COLLABORATORS–HAVE ANYTHING WRONG puts you at the bottom of the cess pool. I am a truth addict: I will accept nothing but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but–no partial truths, no white lies, nothing. And that includes criticism of me. If I change my mind from time to time, that is because of the impact of new evidence or alternative hypotheses. IT IS CALLED “SCIENCE”! I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning–and I cannot abide seeing the same fallacies committed by those who claim to have a stake in JFK TRUTH, 9/11 TRUTH or any other. I am very direct in responding to rubbish. Now I am responding to more of it from you. THIS IS NOT A GAME. IF YOU CAN’T SHOW WHERE WE HAVE SOMETHING WRONG, THEN YOU REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE. You have accepted false histories of Scholars, fake attacks upon me and rumors and speculations, which are unending. I am sorry, but I am SICK OF THE BULLSHIT. If you can’t show we have something wrong, BE SILENT–because you are not advancing the truth by endless ad hominems attacking me. What do we have wrong and how do you know? A simple request. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Do it, if you can.

                    8. David, I know there is something about your psyche that require you to have the last word, even if it is snarky and non-responsive. There are many disinfo ops out there. 90% of the JFK research community appears to be working the other side. There are very few with the kind of background I bring to these efforts, which is why my collaborative work is “cutting edge”. I draw upon the expertise of many others, including, in the case of JFK, a world authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics, a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board certified in radiation oncology, which makes him an expert on X-rays, and many others.

                      Those who are trying to keep the holes in the dikes plugged are running out of fingers. Jones, Ryan and others did not want alternative theories beyond nanothetmite to be considered, so they trashed Scholars rather than employ scholarship. They have never responded to the USGS dust evidence which reveals elements whose presence would be inexplicable had it not been a nuclear event. They love to equivocate and say, “Yes, something beyond nanothermite might have been involved!”, but they never say what that “something” would be. Its a limited hang-out and I have called them out about it–multiple times. My collaborative research is not the problem.

                      You have fallen for a veritable barrage of verbal attacks upon me which completely discount the evidence and logic that lead to the conclusions we have advances (about the alteration of the Zapruder film, Oswald in the doorway, the faking of the crash sites, the nuclear destruction of the Twin Towers, that Wellstone was assassinated using high-tech weaponry, that Sandy Hook was a two-day FEMA drill presented as a LIVE event to promote gun control, that the Boston event was the most amateurish false flag in history. We don’t just make these claims: we prove them!
                      So if you have something to contribute, do it. I learn from serious criticism. Your attacks are not.

                      Here are two YouTubes about the Boston marathon bombing. Just tell me what we have wrong:

                      “The Real Deal special Boston bombing update”
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMxhdiBrqTM and one

                      “Boston Strong: The three ‘Jeff Bauman’s”

                2. David, Has it escaped your attention that neither Judy Wood nor A&E911 will talk about who was responsible and why? Think about it. There are three overarching questions about 9/11: WHO? HOW? and WHY? – JFetzer

                  No, it has not, Professor. In fact, I have long held the opinion that the HOW is irrelevant except to help determine the WHO. (I feel the WHY is self evident)

                  All “we” had to do in all these years is to show the impossibility of the official narrative, the NIST report, and expose the many lies we have been told by those in key positions. I believe this has been accomplished many times over on all counts (WTC1+2+7, Pentagon and Shanksville). But we get stopped on our tracks by a disinfo and propaganda machine that is simply way ahead of the game, mainly because they do not act out of emotion like us losers, but with military precision, scientifically developed social engineering methods, unlimited resources, and with absolutely no moral or legal boundaries.

                  Honestly, I do not give a rat’s ass if it was termites or thermite, nukes or cukes that brought the building down…

                  So, I will give you that point, professor. It certainly feels like there are more body snatchers than actual bodies in the so-called truth movement, the speed whose movement is as fast as an exercise bike.

                  1. Dave, You can’t meant what you say. The HOW matters. If it was done by 19 Islamic fanatics hijacking four commercial carriers and crashing them into the Pentagon and the North and the South Towers, which then collapsed because of the intense heat from the jet fuel fires, then we have no traction with the public, who will immediately dismiss us as “conspiracy theorists”.

                    So the HOW does matter. And we (my associates and I) from Scholars are the only group to address all three issues, where the WHO and the WHY are enormously important if the public is to begin to grasp how it has been played to promote the political agenda of the Neo-Cons and Israel. But I certainly appreciate the more temperate and reasonable tone of this post.

            3. Curiousegypt123 said “So, therefore, we also have to consider Kevin Barrett suspect as well. I feel that he has cosied himself into the Muslim community to keep an eye on them.”

              It is through Kevin Barrett that I found out about Truth and Shadows when Kevin posted one of Craig’s articles. Kevin has also interviewed Craig. Nothing I have seen from Kevin Barrett leads me to suspect that he is a mole.

              1. I agree with you here Mr Anderson, my only problem with Barrett is his continued relationship with Veterans Today. That is not enough to paint him as a mole himself, but for the most part VT is a nest of moles.
                \\][//

      2. “We are in fact divided amongst ourselves as a result of this tempest of bullshit coming from within the 9/11 Truth community itself.”

        And let’s look at two of the camps, the ones who vociferously insist Israel was behind the deed like Fetzer and Bollyn, the writers above and then writers like Tarpley, Griffin, Ryan, Corbett, Massimo Mazzucco and even Craig here, thoughtful, methodical and measured researchers who don’t let hackneyed biases cloud their thinking. I am thankful for the latter.

        1. Yes Jimbo, it is a tempest of bullshit. That is why I disingaged from this Martinez character on the other site. But Sockpuppet wanted to bring the argument here by reporting back to Martinez there, and giving the link to T&S.

          I have proposed the same solution be established here, that we drop the whole thing about who may or may not be an agent.

          I won’t say another word about it unless the sockpuppet persists.
          \\][//

        2. Jimbo,

          I take exception to your characterization of Christopher Bollyn. Please show examples from Bollyn himself that illustrate how he suffers from “hakneyed biases” that “cloud his thinking” and how he blames Israel as opposed to a small group of Zionist supremacist scumbags. If you cannot back up your slanderous statements about Bollyn then I expect you to withdraw those statements and apologize.

          I won’t hold my breath for the examples that back up your statements about Bollyn because I know very well there aren’t any. I will also NOT hold my breath for your apology because I suspect you aren’t going to provide one. My assessment of you is that it is in fact yourself that is biased and has “clouded thinking”. In your case it appears to be the bias in favor of Zionists and in favor of the idea that Jewish people do not have any evil scumbags among them or in positions of power in Israel. I also suspect that you feel the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians is somehow justified.

        3. The amount of bullshit here is beyond belief. I invited Steve to be my co-chair at the suggestion of David Ray Griffin. I was convinced that nanothermite could not have blown the towers apart by mid-2006. My first political speech (on 15 April 2008) was about the role of the neo-cons in advancing the interests of Israel. I would publish “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” not long thereafter. I have been aggressively elaborating on the role of the Mossad on 9/11 ever since.

          Because I was convinced that nanothermite could not cut it and had concluded that Scholars had to cast a broader net of approaches to the problem (of how the towers were destroyed), I invited Judy Wood onto my radio show on 11 November 2006. This appears to have been the precipitating event that led Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and others to bolt from Scholars. But I was right about nanothermite, where Mark Hightower has substantiated its inadequacies:

          Jim Fetzer and Mark Hightower / Is “9/11 Truth” based upon a false theory?
          http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/is-911-truth-based-upon-false-theory_28.html

          Mark Hightower / Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?
          http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/911-truth-will-out-vancouver-hearings-ii.html

          If we cannot deal with alternative theories, then we have abandoned the search for truth. They have not dealt with the issue because they are intellectual cowards or participating in a limited hangout to conceal the true causes of the destruction of the towers. I am convinced that Jones, Ryan and The Journal of 9/11 Studies ARE elements of a limited hang-out, a thought that has apparently never crossed the minds of those who are so unjustly attacking me here:

          Jim Fetzer / 9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II
          http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/911-truth-will-out-vancouver-hearings-ii.html

          Jim Fetzer and Dennis Cimino / Richard Gage, A&E911 and the Journal of 9/11 Studies
          http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/limited-hangouts-kevin-ryan-and-journal.html

          I have carried heavy water on no planes and nukes at the WTC, but with ample justification and superb research from a host of excellent students of 9/11. Here are some examples:

          Don Fox / Did Israel nuke the WTC on 9/11?
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/

          Dennis Cimino / 9/11: A World Swirling in a Volcano of Lies
          http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/911-world-swirling-in-volcano-of-lies.html

          Those attacking me include one obvious mole whose despicable conduct here speaks volumes about his character and agenda. It has nothing to do with truth. On no planes, here is one of my presentations:

          “The Real Deal Ep #100 The 9/11 Crash Sites with Maj. General Albert Stubblebine”

          If anyone thinks I have something wrong, then identify it, explain why I claim it and then tell use what you think I have wrong and how you know. No one here even makes the least effort, no doubt wary that it will expose them as corrupt. So that’s the challenge: if you think I am wrong, the prove it! Another example of my work on the role of Israel in 9/11 is this two-hour video analysis:

          “The Real Deal Ep #103 9/11: Who was responsible and why with Dennis Cimino:

          I explained the developments in Scholars involving Jones and Ryan AT THE TIME THEY WERE TAKING PLACE on 911scholars.org, which my critics simply ignore. The people who are attacking me here trade on rumors and speculations that come from interested parties or dubious sources. Those who are not obvious ops have to be incompetent at research: there is nothing in my research–most of which is collaborative–to justify these vicious, unwarranted attacks. When it comes to 9/11 research, I am not the problem.

          1. Good to see you back Dr. Fetzer. I watched your lecture on Paul Wellstone over 5 years ago, and found it quite interesting.

            RIP Paul Wellstone

  5. Taking one more step back, I’ll add that Graham and Goss most probably understand that there are several ways to declassify the 28 pages. One is what they promote: make it another wedge issue that pits political activists against each other. Another one would be for them to publicly explain the process by which they became convinced that they should keep to themselves 9/11’s essence as a false flag. Still another would be for them to publicly reflect on Building 7’s motion as seen on TV. Imagine a Graham-Goss show on Building 7! The whole 9/11 conspiracy may blow open, in which case the 28 pages would probably eventually be declassified. So their interest in the 28 pages appears to be another act of 9/11-related theater.

    It bears repeating that trusting prominent 9/11 censors like Graham and Goss, who could have terminated the 9/11 conspiracy as early as 2001 from their bully pulpits, to boost 9/11 Truth, should be done only with extreme caution. They may be much more ruthless and cunning than 9/11 Truth activists and leaders would give them credit for.

    Love,

  6. Anyone who supposes that the buildings weren’t blown up probably eats applesauce for breakfast,lunch and dinner.
    In my time harassing people at various venues I have always been right,without a doubt,without question and I don’t think there’s any question about that.
    So look,allright,listen,OK,hear what I’m saying:you’re a fool if you don’t agree with me and where the heck is my goddamned cheeseburger,fries and triple thick shake?

    1. Kudos to the authors of this article for sourced 11 points that thoroughly discredit the Muslim hijacker scenario.

      I notice that Kevin Ryan’s name was mentioned in the article, praising him for excoriating, even if “mildly,” the 28 pages campaign.

      Many here remember that in 2013, I wrote a review, heavily critical, of Ryan’s book “Another Nineteen.”

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/

      The first and foremost problem I had with the book is that he thinks we can pursue 9/11 truth while still accepting the Muslim hijackings scenario. Given the extensive body of research refuting that scenario by 2013, I was bewildered that Ryan would take this position. He believes in both the controlled demolition inside job, AND the hijackings scenario, to which he says he defers “for simplicity, and avoiding unnecessary complications.”

      From his book: “For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.” (p. 14)

      Atlee, Freeland and Curtiss point out that the fact that there’s no credible timestamped photos of any of the hijackers boarding the planes is extremely strong evidence against the hijacker scenario.

      Regarding the 4-digit “squawk” code to alert the FAA that a hijacking is in progress, and how no such squawks were made on the 9/11 planes, Ryan also states in his book:

      “Yet none of the four planes had squawked the hijack code on 9/11 and therefore it is not clear how such codes could have been in the system.” (p. 125)

      As I responded in my review:

      Ryan’s analysis seems to hinge on the idea that real hijackings were taking place, and that of course the hapless pilots would indeed have squawked the codes if only they were in the system.

      While Ryan stated at the book’s outset that we should accept that “the alleged hijackers” were on the planes, passages like the above go further, and promote the idea that these Middle Eastern men were conducting a genuine terrorist hijacking. (Without stating it explicitly, Ryan’s analysis seems to insinuate that the hijack codes might have been disabled or removed from the four flights in question so that the hijackings could be successful; in other words, a “LIHOP” [let it happen on purpose] scenario, whereby US officials took steps to allow a terrorist hijacking to take place.)

      Ryan’s scenario is quite confusing: exactly how much credit is he giving the alleged hijackers? So far, he’s indicated that they got onto the planes (despite lack of credible security video showing any of them boarding planes anywhere) and that they successfully hijacked them.

      Ryan accepts the fact that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosive demolition, and hence, that the plane crashes and resulting fires/smoke served as cover for the demolitions. The next logical step is to realize that the planners would not take such a risk as to leave the control of the planes to human chance.

      What if the suicide pilot had a change of heart, or what if he decided to suicide bomb the plane into another target, or what if he missed the Trade Tower and ended up crashing into another building/s or the Hudson? One obvious answer is: the demolitions wouldn’t be able to go forward, and the whole psy-op would be ruined.

      Ryan seems to understand this, and as such he appears to be on the same page as many 9/11 truthers who believe that the planes were, in the greatest of likelihoods, flown by remote control, using an advanced GPS system, into their targets.

      Citing Operation Northwoods, as well as the research of Aidan Monaghan, Ryan proposes this possibility. While he certainly deserves credit for sharing Monaghan’s information, his proposed scenario involving U.S. insiders as well as “the alleged hijackers” only serves, unfortunately, to complicate and confuse: where does the actual hijacking cease and remote takeover begin? If the plan is to use remote control, why bother with a “hijacking” at all?

  7. “But consider the not unlikely possibility that the real players in 9/11 were not the Saudis, but rather the Bush neocons and their Israeli partners in crime.”

    I have been honest before about my touchiness when it comes to blaming Israel. That’s my ox you’re goring, Craig. Nonetheless, I not in denial to the possibility. After all, cui bono? Among others, Israel.

    But still, I take solace that much 9/11 truth material lays out evidence of a conspiracy without mentioning Israel. Take James Corbett’s recent video about following the money on 9/11. For one hour he went on implicating Wall St., the Pentagon, the 9/11 Commission making the case that 9/11 was a crime, more specifically, a robbery and he does so without implicating Israel as blatantly as you have here. What evidence we have so far re Israel IMO is among the most circumstantial evidence the movement has and for you to make them your patsies here rather than the Saudis touches my nerve.

    As for those “Bush neocons,” fuck ’em.

    1. “As for those “Bush neocons,” fuck ’em.”~Jimbo

      And most of those “Bush neocons,” were dual Israeli-American citizens. Hmmm???
      \\][//

      1. Most? Dual citizens? Really? I don’t think so. A number of the prime suspects are Jewish but most are not. And as for all of them actually having dual citizenship, well, Wiki says Chertoff does have it but without checking each and every Jewish PNAC member I would bet they aren’t. One site I checked says many main Jewish suspects are “dual-citizens” (ooh, scare quotes). I Wiki-ed Judge Mukasey and Scooter Libby whom the site wrote had d-c but they don’t. Good sense and experience tells me some 9/11 researchers amp up the Jewish/Zionist/dual-citizenship angle to play on biases and ignorance, as did the article above. If accuracy is to be respected then let’s be accurate. Here is the site with the list of “dual-citizens.” http://www.whodidit.org/cocon.html

        1. Thanks for providing the “Who Did It” page. You actually think you have made a valid point with this? Among the “Bush Neocons” are those in the Bush 2 administration – not the military, who are simply neocons of various stripes. That PNAC is a neocon project was headed by primarily ‘Israeli Firsters’, it is hardly debatable that there was a strong Israeli influence on the project.
          What about Christian Zionists? Are they not cheerleaders for Israeli policy?
          You have a biased paring knife, in my humble opinion.
          \\][//

          1. “That PNAC is a neocon project was headed by primarily ‘Israeli Firsters’,”

            No, they’re NWO-Firsters. Israel along with the UK, the NATO countries, Japan, most recently Ukraine and others aiding and fighting, paying big bucks together as allies with the US will control the world. It’s a big strategic plan for getting the oil and whatever else “we” need. A thriving and militarily strong Israel is just a part of their plan. 9/11 was the kick-off. Sure, Israel benefitted (if you think perpetual war is a benefit – and some do) and maybe even aided in the op but that is the price for membership in this new, more secure, world order. But it is the US with red-blodded, egg-headed Chicago school American neo-cons quarterbacking the play. Their Jewishness, fondness for Israel, love of Jesus, whatever is secondary. They’re doing it for the Gipper, not Golda Meir.

              1. One final point. Placing Israel or Zionists or “dual-citizens” at the center of 9/11 is as much of a deception as much of a distraction as much of an obfuscation as Bob Graham’s mysterious 28 pages. That article above slapped Israel onto the discussion table like they are as sure of Israel being the mastermind behind 9/11 as Graham and co are saying its Saudi Arabia. 9/11 was an American (led) op. PNAC, Project for a New AMERICAN Century.

                1. Wrong Jimbo. There is plenty of evidence that a large number of powerfully placed Zionist supremacists were intimately involved in 9/11 and profited handsomely from it and to deny that truth is just plain wrong. Shielding the guilty wins you no points with me Jimbo and I think it is despicable to protect evil people like Larry Silverstein, Dov Zackheim, Frank Lowy, and the MANY other Zionist supremacist scum involved in 9/11. They are in it up to their eyeballs and Kevin Ryan is no hero pal for ignoring the obvious Zionist connections to 9/11 and neither is anyone else who protects the guilty. Lies are lies. I am a truther not a liar.

                2. The NWO crowd ARE ‘Israel Firsters,’ too…..there’s no dichotomy between wanting a nationalist ethno-state for Jews, and wanting zio-communist, slave states for the rest of the world….thats what the evidence undeniably shows, actually…

            1. Jimbo, I walk back from my position and grant you your main points on these grounds:

              What is Zionism at it’s core? Is it a religious ideology? No, it masquerades as a religious ideology, it’s true ideology is realpolitik, and the principles of realpolitik are blatantly simple: “Might makes Right” and “The Ends Justify the Means”. If you real think these principles are in the exclusive domain of Jews, you are simply ethnophobic.
              Exceptionalism is a trait of all tyrannical memes, from “the Chosen People” to “American Exceptionalism manifest destiny bullshit, to “The Master Race” nonsense picked up from the Eugenicist blather started by the Social Darwinists of the 1800’s.
              \\][//

              1. “What is Zionism at it’s core? Is it a religious ideology?”

                It is quite simple really. Think of the founding of America and then think the of the original Zionists and settlers like the American pilgrims. Escaping persecution and discrimination the Jews, religious and secular (equally persecuted), settled Israel like European Christians settled America. Since its inception Israel has thrived. No mystery. End of story. What goes on now is just part of their daily reality. Yeah they have their myths like every group wanting to believe in their own goodness but there is no ” we are the chosen people” bullshit except as part of the religious liturgy. Re the Palestinians, I guess the founders had a plan to deal as fairly and as peaceably as they could with the “natives” but things didn’t turn out as they planned so they are dealing with it as best as they can. And they do have enemies and luckily they have the US as a friend. But there is no mumbo-jumbo. It’s a modern country like France or Australia. Visit if you like.

                1. I have no more sympathy for Israel than I have for Amerika, I consider both terrorist organizations on national scales, the same goes for all of the NATO members.
                  I think you misread the Palestinian issue grossly, there was never a serious intent to do anything about the Palestinians than drive them out of Eraez Israel.
                  \\][//

                  1. Yes indeed Israel has done nothing short of mass murder and massive theft of land from the Palestinians. The Israeli government is evil as hell just as our government here in the USA is in the hands of very evil people.

                2. It is most interesting Jimbo, at the same time we have been having this conversation here, I am being accused of being a “Zionist Agent” by some Judaeophobic dickspittle named Brandon Martinez, on the RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast, YouTube forum.
                  So from one extreme point of view to another I am caught in the middle being called shill from both sides!

                  “Zios usually resort to ad hom attacks, insults and vulgarities when losing an argument. If you’re not an Israeli agent then you may wish to sign up as one because you’re doing their bidding.”~Brandon Martinez

                  Now here is an example of a guy that doesn’t know what and ad hominem is, and equates them to “vulgarities”. It is actually his accusations against me as a Zionist agent, that are ad hominem, as he is using them in his argument against me {at the man}, where as I am NOT arguing against him with my ‘vulgarities’. I told him to fuck off. That is NOT an argument. It was not part of the substance of my argument. It has nothing to do with my argument. I simply told him to fuck off – I am not willing to take his personal slurs and ad hominem in stride.
                  So this is where we get to the point of reason in argument, and realizing when the bounds of reason have been breached, and the “debate” is over. I told this assfuck I wouldn’t take his bullshit anymore – but he now wants to harass me because I said I won’t respond to him further.
                  I have been through this sort of situation before, a couple times on T&S. There is a distinction between debate, and telling someone to fuck off who refuses to quit the debate. If they want to declare victory and bounce around the ring like some ‘champion’ I don’t care. What pisses me off is continued taunts, to try to draw me back into their nonsense.
                  \\][//

        2. First of all Wikipedia is TOTALLY discredited and should NOT be used as a source for anything but especially not for anything related to 9/11 or Zionism. Literally Wikipedia is officially sanctioned propaganda and nothing more. I would not trust them to tell me the truth about who won the last Superbowl. I would have to cross check with other sources.

          Also Christopher Bollyn lays out compelling evidence of Zionist involvement in 9/11 in his books and articles that cannot be dismissed as “circumstantial”.

  8. Geez, just noticed it wasn’t you, Craig, who wrote this article. Nonetheless, to the other writers, the same goes. Otherwise, a brilliant article.

  9. What part did Saudi Arabia play? Do the individual players within Saudi Arabia, who played a part, represent Saudi Arabia? Bandar Bush for example?
    Same with Pakistan , ISI.
    We know the majority of US citizens played no part whatsoever in the 911 conspiracy,
    while we know that enough of them did, to achieve it.
    The argument that the US’ Government’ conspired, is not a false one. It obviously conspired. And does still.
    The ‘Government’ represents the people of the US. But the people of the US did not conspire to 911. They are being played at all levels of disinformation to hold an opinion without resort to discovery, as is necessary to continue the deception. On one level ‘the people’ of US cannot ever be blamed for 911. On another, they absolutely, can. Because the dumb shits don’t go looking for themselves to see what tracks exist in the snow, and where they lead.
    Distinctions, as Jimbo writes them, are necessary in terms of balancing the illicit transformation of probability into certainty ie:to make sure, but the minefield of anti-semitism is fraught and nuanced. Self censorships’ many a discussion. Reference to US pilgrims and Australian murder of Aboriginal culture, are well enough put, yet, unlike Australia and France, Israel as a country, thru its ‘government’ (I have visited) regularly commits egregious war crimes on the people of GAZA and other Palestinian lands without ANY apparent conscience.

    But. we are discussing the forensics of 911truth. The tracks that exist in the snow.
    Times, dates and places. Names of peoples witnessed there, and then established in the record.

    In our wish to be fair on every country and state in not apportioning blame without knowing, we mustn’t overlook the fact that geopolitics IS country State and game; and not dismiss what we DO know. James, for instance, failed to note Bollyns 08 reporting the presence of Michael GOFF in management position in PTECH at start-up. Unless its been proved otherwise, that fact is important in the investigation. To not mention it, equally so.
    If we put the varying information streams from 14 years of deepening investigative work into the central algorithm, Israel, as ‘country,’ along with USA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as ‘country[ies] – through the actions of central players identified in time-line-up of those on scene and in gate-keeping roles afterwards – can actually BE pointed to, and said of ; ‘you are involved in the 911 conspiracy’. Not that you DID it. But that you; Israeli/US/Saudi/Pak, as represented in the forensics, are involved in the 911 conspiracy and coverup.

    Russian citizens were not identified as operational on 911. So ‘Russia’ is not involved.’ China is not. Cuba, South Africa, Australia, Greenland, not; had no identifiable citizenry in or about the control activities of WTC ownership, intelligence, insurance, security, construction/destruction, policing, investigation, micro-chip insertion, DoJ, Official Reports nor, media.

    Unless we stop mentioning ALL countries so far identifiably involved, I would argue your ‘One final point and say, NOT ‘placing Israel or Zionists or “dual-citizens” at the center of 9/11 is as much of a deception as much of a distraction as much of an obfuscation as Bob Graham’s mysterious 28 pages.’

  10. Another alleged ‘hijacker’, Nawaf al-Hazmi’s driver’s license was found on of a pile of rubble at the Pentagon.
    How convenient is that? But to a shocked and reeling nation after 9/11, very believable, since we needed someone or something to hate, like Islam.

    Those 14 Saudis dropped from the national dialogue quickly as planned, to be used later when the trail of evidence led to the real perps, Israel assisted by traitors in the WH, the Pentagon, the CIA, FBI and NSA.

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11:Israel_did_it

    One more thought: By dumping on Saudi Arabia, this will also help Israel achieve their goal of an Eretz Israel, which will stretch from the River Nile to the Tigris, from southern Turkey to northern Arabia.

    1. “One more thought: By dumping on Saudi Arabia, this will also help Israel achieve their goal of an Eretz Israel, which will stretch from the River Nile to the Tigris, from southern Turkey to northern Arabia.”

      Welcome to 9/11 Hyperbole.

      1. “9/11 Hyperbole?”

        When you look at the ME and African nations the USA and its NATO mob has decimated, the hyperbole isn’t so hyper.

        Israel wanted Saddam destroyed and got their wish.

        Israel wanted Gaddafi gone and got their wish.

        Now the USA is engaged in destroying another of Israel’s enemies, Syria, but so far, Syria isn’t going quietly.

        These endless ME wars are basically benefitting two entities, Wall Street, which is making tons of money off the financing of and selling of weaponry and Israel, which is using the phony ‘War of Terror’ to obliterate Palestine, one more nation Israel wants gone.

        Another nation Israel wanted destroyed, Iran, has so far evaded ‘Shock and Awe,’ but the bulls eye is firmly on their back.

        Or is all of that ‘hyperbole?’

          1. How is it that speculation is bad when it comes to being a good 9/11 truther except when it comes to speculating about Israel’s motives and future moves? I though we are all about evidence, photos, documents, actual news reports, etc.,

            Come to think of it, this article about the 28 pages is speculating as to what it contains. The writers assume the pages contain damning info about SA and its active part in 9/11 but that is speculation. From interviews and articles I have read and seen prior to this one Graham and co. have been mum as to its specifics. And after the censor gets through with his or her black pen who knows what it will say?

            1. There is no “speculating” at all about the evil shit Israel has done with America’s help. AIPAC controls American politics and so for all intents and purposes America provides the army that Israel commands. They have used that Army to destroy many “enemies” of Israel. Any evil deeds not done directly by America are done by Israel itself with the help of massive financial and military aid from America. Israels motives are clear they want to wipe out the Palestinians and take all of their land and property because they are “God’s chosen people”. Of course my opinion doesn’t matter since I am just a lowly goy.

              1. “For years the 9/11 Truth movement has been vainly pleading with mainstream media – and the “alternative” 9/11-Truth-rejecting media (which we’ll include for our purposes as mainstream) to cover any of the endless, obvious problems with any of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (OCT) tales we’ve been told.” (The opening line of the above article.)

                This line, I think, accurately expresses what 9/11 Truth is all about. Too bad, as it says, our pleading for getting the truth out has been in vain so far. One big criticism of our movement is that we are “anti-semetic.” Without getting into the weeds whether being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist means anti-Jewish as well, it is the perception that we are anti-Jewish. Nonetheless, David Ruff, by going off and ranting about “Zionist supremacists,” a term used freely I see on the David Duke and Stormfront sites, you are doing getting 9/11 truth’s message no favor. My intent is not to protect Israel but to promote 9/11 truth. Yes, there is evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11 but to froth over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and to meld that narrative into 9/11 truth’s message is a mistake. If you are upset over Zionist supremacists there is a forum on Stormfront you should consider joining.

                  1. You see Jimbo I am not concerned about “getting into the weeds” by pointing out the obvious involvement of MANY Zionist Supremacists in the crime. Any person who rejects 9/11 truth because they can’t face the TRUTH of Zionists being involved is hopelessly lost anyway and will never embrace 9/11 truth. A real truther doesn’t care who does and doesn’t like the truth, he or she simply pursues the truth wherever it leads. Now your labeling me anti-semetic and trying to link me to Storm Front and David Duke is a perfect example of hate speech itself. This is a common and despicable tactic used by very unethical groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center to label ANYONE who criticizes Israel as “anti-semetic”.

                    I got the term “Zionist supremacist” originally from my friend Jeremy Rothe-Kushel (Who is quite Jewish by the way) after a lengthy discussion of the possibility of Israeli agents being involved in 9/11. A conversation I had with him on the 5 hour road trip to interview Richard Gage about the Simon Wiesenthal Institute going before congress and labeling A+E as a terrorist group. I was the camera man and editor for the following video:

                    Jeremy and I went to the Simon Wiesenthal Institute in Los Angeles to confront them about labeling A+E as a terrorist group and this video is the result of that encounter:

                    So anyway Jimbo your hateful and despicable attempt to turn me into a racist Jew hater is a big FAIL buddy and fuck you very much for trying.

                    1. I apologize for implying you are anti-semetic. And I do recall how the Palestinians dancing was cited over and over thus unfairly smearing them. Still you do get overly excited over this issue and your rhetoric and verbiage is not helpful IMO.

                    2. I do get excited about the truth, perhaps you should too Jimbo. Instead of trying to be a PR agent on behalf of Zionist supremacist scumbags maybe you should simply concentrate on finding out the truth. Your attempts to “guide” me and others away from compelling evidence that implicates these Zionist supremacist filth are not only unwelcome but counterproductive to the goal of solving 9/11 and bringing the guilty to justice. Perhaps Christopher Bollyn’s book would do you a lot of good to read instead of using the old and VERY tired meme that he is “anti-semetic” to dismiss all his evidence with a hand wave. You know that old bullshit of clubbing people over the head with the holocaust and the anti-semetic label no longer works to suppress the truth about Israeli crimes and it just makes those who use it look desperate and deceitful.

                      Those in charge of Israel are just as rotten and evil as those in charge of America and those in charge of Saudi Arabia and Russia etc etc etc.

                    3. Here in this next video Christopher Bollyn exposes the Zionist supremacists who perpetrated the destruction of 9/11 evidence. A heinous crime all unto itself.

                      The following 10-minute video, Solving 9-11: Destroying the Evidence, explains how the FBI, under the supervision of Michael Chertoff, allowed the crucial steel evidence from the World Trade Center to be destroyed. Rather than conducting a forensic examination of the steel to determine how the buildings were destroyed, this crucial evidence was hastily cut up, mixed with other scrap, and shipped to steel mills in Asia.

                1. “My intent is not to protect Israel but to promote 9/11 truth. Yes, there is evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11 but to froth over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and to meld that narrative into 9/11 truth’s message is a mistake.”~Jimbo

                  It depends on if you can frame 9/11 Truth in a vacuum and leave other truth out of the matrix.
                  To frame concern over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as “froth” is to imply that such treatment is in some way acceptable. As a person of conscience I have to disagree with you with some vehemence on this point. The treatment of the Palestinians by Israel is no less than a crime against humanity. No less a crime against humanity than the US bombing nations like Afghanistan to rubble, or the other wars of aggression the US military has waged for 60 plus years now.
                  \\][//

                  1. As a “person of conscience” Willy, why not list all the other inhumane acts in the world and compare them with the 9/11 crime. Frankly, I think the Israel vs Palestinian conflict is related more to the founding of Israel and, except for their viciousness, totally unrelated to 9/11 . The current refugee crisis, however, is directly related to what happened on 9/11. Why not froth (yeah I said it) over countries who are not allowing in refugees or countries which harbor ISIS, or even over Israel’s part in the dismantling of Syria. Muddying a 9/11 Truth site with the Israel vs Palestinian conflict does not advance our cause here.

                    1. “Muddying a 9/11Truth site with the Israel vs Palestinian conflict does not advance our cause here.”~Jimbo

                      Speaking to the Israel vs Palestinian conflict does not retard our cause here at all.
                      \\][//

                    2. The link between 9/11 and the Palestinian issue is very simple. Zionist supremacists were deeply involved in orchestrating 9/11 for the specific purpose of getting America to destroy Israels enemies. One of those enemies is of course the Palestinians whom they are wiping out through genocide.

                      Here is a fake news piece which came out right after 9/11 that claimed Palestinians were cheering that America was attacked. This was staged of course and the kids and woman are actually cheering for candy and cake being given away by the camera crew. Clearly Israeli agents trying to manipulate Americans into hating the Palestinians. Now why on Earth would they do that?

                      That is Tom Brokaw saying and I quote “The Palestinians in the streets are cheering and celebrating these attacks”. So once again Jimbo your rabid defense of anything Israeli is a big fat FAIL. The Palestinian issue is intimately linked to 9/11.

                2. I have discussed this before, but I will make clear again: I do not agree that Israel was the main perpetrators of 9/11. The perps were a combination of Zionist Israelis, Zionist Christians, and the US Military Industrial Complex, which has only strategic military goals. At the core of the whole network is the International click of financiers. The whole game is realpolitik, and their agenda is based in “Might makes Right” and “the Ends Justify the Means”. This is the guiding rule among psychopaths who have no religious ideology, only the insatiable lust for political power.
                  \\][//

                  1. I see where you are coming from by holding that position and I cannot really disagree with your overall assessment of who was really behind the dastardly deed. I will point out though that while “Christian Zionists” were surely involved they are about as pro Israel as you can get without being an Israeli. I will also point out that the “international click of financiers” are headed by the Rothchild cartel who control much of the worlds financial strings. As to the “strategic military goals” of our “military industrial complex” they seem to be very much in line with destroying the perceived enemies of Israel.

                    May I also point out that virtually all of the MSM and Hollywood is controlled by Zionists and heavily promotes a false narrative about Israel (good) and the Palestinians(bad). Since the chief operator of the destruction of the evidence, namely the WTC steel, was Michael Chertoff a Zionist dual citizen we can safely say that the Zionists were certainly well placed to destroy the evidence and control access to it. Since the media is controlled by Zionists then we can safely say they were well positioned to cover-up the crime and control the narrative after the fact. We can also look at who benefited from 9/11 the most both financially and strategically and again we are right back to Zionists.

                    Were these Zionists capable of orchestrating 9/11? In other words did they have the resources to actually do it and then cover it up and control the legal process afterwards? The answer is YES! In my opinion the Christian Zionists, Zionist Israeli’s, and the military industrial complex are one and the same thing and are all operating on behalf of this click of Zionist supremacists and at least inside their own twisted minds think they are operating on behalf of Israel. In my opinion this will all backfire and eventually destroy Israel and a whole lot of innocent Jewish people. It will backfire in the same way the Nazi’s burning down the Reichstag ultimately resulted not in them conquering the world but in the almost complete destruction of Germany.

                    The average Jewish person is no more involved in 9/11 than the average American is involved in US aggressions all over the world. It is the sociopathic monsters at the top who are doing these things and it is they who must be stopped. In the case of 9/11 those sociopaths happen to be Zionist supremacists and their close allies the so called Christian Zionists. No other group was positioned to plan, execute, cover-up, destroy the evidence, control the narrative, and control the legal process after 9/11 but this cabal of Zionist supremacist monsters. They had the resources of both the USA and Israel at their disposal. They did it and they will pay for their crimes.

    1. You’re welcome Jimbo,

      Yes it is remarkably similar to 9/11 isn’t it. Are you familiar with the film EXODUS (1960)?
      It is a semi accurate but mushy portrayal of the event and the lead up to it. It is based on the Leon Uris novel of the same name.

      I have done quite extensive research on the establishment of Israel. I used the Wiki references because I know them to be accurate. The book, CONTROVERSY OF ZION by Douglas Reed is perhaps one of the most important books ever written on Zionism. It is available as a free, PDF @ this link: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/reeedcontrov.pdf
      \\][//

      1. Thanks for both of those, too. I’ve recently found Chritopher Bollyn and find all that info of his pretty incredible. I just ordered his book, Solving 911 . . . should be here tomorrow. At any rate, the King David Hotel Bombing is fascinating. Also, I’m eager to check out the Controversy of Zion book . . .

      2. Back in the early 90’s I met a girl in a bar and grill on Ventura Blvd called STANLEY’S, after a couple drinks she invited me over to her apartment in West Hollywood. Things took an interesting twist when sh explained that the apartment she was in was once rented by Sal Mineo. In 1976 he was stabbed in the parking lot and made it to the bottom of the stairs where he collapsed and died. We had just walked up those stairs a few minutes before she told me about it once being his apartment.

        Mineo of course, played one of the Israeli’s dressed as Arabs who bombed the King David Hotel in the movie EXODUS. I remembered him primarily from REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE.
        Odd, the mysterious deaths of that movie’s stars; Mineo, James Dean, Natalie Wood…
        \\][//

  11. It seems the only possible way to a new investigation is taking legal action. In the fourteen years since the events, it seems (from one who’s looked into it more than the average American) there are more than enough grounds, evidence or reasonable doubts for a lawsuit to force the truth out in a courtroom.

    1. Hi Jerry,

      Taking legal action is an interesting concept. Who would bring such a legal action? Under what venue? You don’t actually think that anyone could get such a hearing in a US court of law do you? The judicial branch is no less corrupt and compromised than the executive and legislative branches. The entire system is beyond corrupt, it is constitutionally ultra vires.
      There is a criminal syndicate squatting in DC under the false color of law. This criminal syndicate is global.

      Nothing short of a complete paradigm shift is going to change anything at this point. You may find my position cynical in the extreme, but I think it is based on the facts at hand.

      Gaining popular support in face of the successful social engineering by the Public Relations
      Regime is equally unlikely. I am sorry if this strikes you as hopeless.
      \\][//

  12. The 911 criminal syndicate owns the courts. if anyone thinks ‘a case’ can just arrive in a court room…Christopher Bollyn reports all 911 cases/torts so far went through one court in NY and the judge was one man. Alvin K.Hellerstein.

    1. If one compares a legal case on 9/11 to the case Jim Garrison had on the JFK assassination, or the Christic Institute had on Iran-Contra, it’s more than Garrison and comparable to the Christic Institute. Im’ not an attorney but good God there has to enough attorneys in America pissed off about this insane situation who can put their heads together and bring it on. Then again, probably a good number of American prosecutors aware of the reasonable points made in Vincent Bugliosi’s book “The Prosecution George W. Bush for Murder”, maybe even knowing personally men in their district who died in Iraq, but not one of them had the courage to act. Now people know what Joseph Heller was feeling when he wrote “Catch 22”. Un-freakin-believable.What’s needed are a group of attorneys with the attitude conveyed by Al Pacino in the film “Scent of a Woman” when he raged, “…I’d take a FLAME-thrower to this place!!!”

      1. The situation is as frustrating as hell isn’t it Jerry? That is why I feel that it is enough to know that I understand these things personally, and I am not the chump that so so many people are, especially Amerikans! It is not a feeling of superiority I am speaking to it is the feeling of epiphany__as is said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set ye free.”
        \\][//

    2. Yes indeed Hellerstein is the cover-upper in chief in the courts. His crimes are heinous and massive in scope. The very fact that all cases dealing with 9/11 are railroaded through him tells you that the fix is in at the very highest levels of the government and judiciary. Hellerstein along with all those who force cases into his tainted and corrupt courtroom belong in prison for treason. Absolute scum of the Earth despicable traitors.

  13. Speaking of JKF Garrison. And given the crossovers with 911 deepstate,. Fletcher Prouty said of the JFK HIT “[to do with courts, power and SCAD] “The whole story of the POWER of the Cover-up comes down to a few points. There has never been a Grand Jury and trial in Texas. Without a trial there can be nothing. Without a trial it does no good for researchers to dig up data. It has no place to go and what the researchers reveal just helps make the cover-up tighter, or they eliminate that evidence and the researcher.”
    Last years NY initiative might be able to offer a few insights into Court control factors.
    And Sibel Edmonds is discussing the power paradigm vis-a-vis high end deviant elites and the courts at the moment, http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2015/09/17/probable-cause-with-sibel-edmonds-dennis-hastert-why-prosecutors-will-be-forced-to-lose-or-drop-the-case/comment-page-1/#comment-20740
    Same questions. How is Justice corrupted? You can SEE them at work. If ‘they’ can dangle the Hastert farce, imagine how 911 would play..

    1. Impunity from prosecution is the plague of corruption common to psychopathic societies. Oligarchies are always formed by psychopathic societies. There has never been a form of government in the history of the human race but oligarchy. Official history is written by the winners, and is always mere popular myth. Government is, and has always been nothing but a racket.
      You want to DO something about this!? Go find another planet to live on.
      \\][//

  14. The Prestige – FLNWO #30
    Posted: 21 Sep 2015 07:00 AM PDT

    [audio mp3="https://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/flnwo30-lq.mp3"][/audio]

    “This month on Film, Literature and the New World Order we talk to Jay Dyer of JaysAnalysis.com about his review of the 2006 Christopher Nolan film, The Prestige. Topics discussed include twilight language and the revelation of the method, what Nikola Tesla signifies in the story, the art of misdirection, the similarities between stagecraft and statecraft, and much more.”~James Coarbett
    \\][//

  15. Of course the US government’s glorious allies, the Saudis have received a lot of bad press as of late due to it consistently breaking its own records for beheadings, but sometimes a simple beheading isn’t sufficient. In a punishment known as “crucifixion,” the executed person’s beheaded body is placed on public display for three days. Currently facing this fate are three political activists, including two children. We learn from Reprieve.org that:
    Sheikh Nimr Baqir Al Nimr, a 53-year old critic of the Saudi regime, and two juveniles, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr and Dawoud Hussain al-Marhoon, were arrested during a 2012 crackdown on anti-government protests in the Shiite province of Qatif. After a trial marred by irregularities, Mr Al Nimr was sentenced to death by crucifixion on charges including ‘insulting the King’ and delivering religious sermons that ‘disrupt national unity’. This week, it emerged that the authorities plan to execute him on Thursday, despite protests from the UN and Saudi human rights organizations.The planned execution of Mr Al Nimr has prompted fears for the safety of the two juveniles, who were both 17 when they were arrested and eventually sentenced to death on similar charges. Both teenagers were tortured and denied access to lawyers, and faced trials that failed to meet international standards. All three prisoners, including Mr Al Nimr, have not yet exhausted their legal appeals.http://www.blacklistednews.com/Saudi_Arabia_Prepares_to_Execute_Teenager_via_%E2%80%9CCrucifixion%E2%80%9D_for_Political_Dissent/46277/0/38/38/Y/M.html
    \\][//

    1. Not a Joke – Saudi Arabia Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Panel
      Posted: 20 Sep 2015 09:00 PM PDT
      If you were trying to put together a global all-star team of the most authoritarian, human rights abusing nations on earth, not only would Saudi Arabia be at the top of the list, it would be captain of the squad. In a move as embarrassing, laughable and tragic as Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize just as he was about to embark upon several overseas wars and drone countless civilians to death without due process, the United Nations has, remarkably, named Saudi Arabia head of it’s human rights panel.
      http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/669JYAt5iKg/M.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
      \\][//

  16. It is all so crazy I’m (finally?) coming to believe a great “Gaslighting” has been going on for a long time. We have been certainly been gaslighted about 9/11 since the day when we were told it was Bin Ladin and that’s been that ever since. The lying is so “in your face” what can you do? Remember Joey Bishop in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying and his wife walks in on him while he is in bed with a pretty young woman and the wife asks, “Who’s that?” He says, “Who’s who?” Deny, deny, deny really works!

  17. This is a response article posted in Scientific American mag. in reply to; An article in Scientific American itself, in which M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering Eduardo Kausel states:
    “I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements–floor trusses and columns–so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse.”
    http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/sciam01/sci_am1.html

    A very informative rebuttal of Kausel’s preposterous assertions.
    \\][//

  18. “The truth is out there”

    Conspiracy theories are all around us. In August 2004, a poll by Zogby International showed that 49 percent of New York City residents, with a margin of error of 3.5 percent, believed that officials of the U.S. government “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” In a Scripps-Howard Poll in 2006, with an error margin of 4 percent, some 36 percent of respondents assented to the claim that “federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center or took no action to stop them.”
    Sixteen percent said that it was either very likely or somewhat likely that “the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.”~Cass R. Sunstein, hyperventilating over the fact that TV news is less effective in brainwashing Amerikans than it used to be.

    Well Sunstein set out to try to fix that by helping establish a corpse of disinforments to recruit for duty in infiltrating the web and other public media and poisoning the well of discourse with “cognitive infiltration”.
    Although Sunstein published his book ‘Conspiracy Theories’ in 2008, he had already been lobbying behind the scenes long before then to try to stamp out dissent. Peculiar activities for a so-called constitutional legal scholar. He seems to have forgotten the 1st and 4th Amendments to the US Constitution. Not atypical of the new breed of so-called academics in the corporatist run “government”.
    http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/387.pdf
    \\][//

  19. This article is a reminder that I won’t get too excited should the Pentagon ever announce the release of confiscated footage of the “plane crash”. Whatever they show us will likely be fake and will only serve to support the official story.

      1. Craig said “Yes, in fact what they’ve shown us so far has been proven to be doctored to show something we’re supposed to believe is a plane.”

        Yes, I read your article on the subject from June 2014. Funny how they doctor a video which isn’t even convincing to begin with!

        1. @Peter Anderson According to the documentary , they ‘re-touched this area of the frame by means of cut-and- paste in order to cover the plane, and kept the end of the smoke trail to make it look like the nose of the plane entering frame’.
          If they covered the plane it would mean there was a plane there in the first place. The point is though that if you look at the frame which is supposed to be doctored you can actually see the image of the plane, something the digital expert missed. This is someone minutely examining one particular small area of one particular frame of a video with sophisticated digital tools and missed an image of obvious object, a large airliner.

          1. “and missed an image of obvious object, a large airliner.”~Agent Wright

            A large airliner??!! Wright everyone has seen these videos by now, there simply is no obvious airliner in them. Nothing that can even vaguely be construed as an airliner. If YOU see one you are hallucinating.
            \\][//

          2. Why would you need to doctor video that actually shows an airliner? Why not provide authentic video not to mention video from any of the other 85 cameras that must have shown what really happened?

            1. Why would you need to doctor a video that actually shows an airliner- that’s what it says in that documentary, that the video showed the plane and that it was doctored to remove it. How does that make sense? They are the ones saying there was an airliner and the video was doctored to remove it. The video shows the plane just as the witnesses described it crashing into the side of the building.
              There were not 85 videos from the Pentagon. Why does that have to be repeated and repeated as if repeating something that isn’t true makes it true.

              1. A. Wright said “There were not 85 videos from the Pentagon. Why does that have to be repeated and repeated as if repeating something that isn’t true makes it true.”

                You mean just like the plane you keep claiming is in the video?

                The Pentagon is a heavily fortified building. If the video that’s been released is all they have, that would mean that a convenience store has better surveillance.

              2. There were 85 videos in the vicinity of the Pentagon that the FBI refuses to release, according to a FOIA request. Are we finished splitting hairs now?

                As for the video, you miss the entire point. The video was proven to have been doctored, however that researcher interpreted that. It’s simple; if it’s really a 757, then there would be no need for the government to doctor the video. Nor would there be any reason to withhold the 85.

  20. Dispelling Internet Disinformation Tactics – Debunking the Debunkers

    Internet TROLLS, also known as “forum posters”, “internet bloggers,” or if we call them what they really are, SHILLS, are increasingly being recruited by corporations or subcontracted agencies not only for marketing (Exposing Cyber Shills and Social Media’s Underworld) or political purposes (Definition of a sock puppet), but also, to distract from the truth to prevent public outcry about hazardous programs such as geoengineering (climate engineering & weather modification), dirty archaic energy (oil-Keystone XL pipeline, gas-fracking), the dangers of genetically modified foods (GMOs, big ag, biotech, warfare chemical companies), vaccine risks, Smart Meters, 9/11 questions, and EVERY issue where profiteers put their bottom line and lust for control, over the destruction of the planet at the expense of our health & sustainability of the planet.

    Internet trolls are often employees that answered a job ad on craigslist or some other online employment venue. The geoengineering trolls, specifically, are employed by the two main disinformation sites, metabxxx and contrailsciexxx, both ran by a gaming programmer. He and his band of internet trolls lack expertise in science, meteorology or any other field related to geoengineering, yet claim to be “experts” and fancy themselves “debunkers”. “Shillidiocy” is a term that best describes the rapidly growing industry of people ready and willing to sell out humanity for a few pennies per comment. Disinformation has been used throughout history for political manipulation and those same tactics are being utilized today by trolls hired to infiltrate social media.

    1) CHARACTER ASSASSINATION – (Psychological Warfare – discredit, distract, intimidate, frustrate, divide & conquer) – Disinformation shills (trolls) attack the character of leaders in a movement to discredit them, thus discrediting the movement. A main character assassination tactic is to highlight any negative or perceived flaw of an otherwise reputable person, whether true or false, to discredit him/her in an attempt to invalidate their viewpoint and make it appear baseless, for the sole purpose of detracting focus from the information they are sharing. Trolls often “make stuff up” if they can’t find anything real to highlight for this goal, after all, shills are paid liars. Trolls are hired to make leading or inflammatory comments for the sole purpose of baiting their targets to create a “controversial debate” where none truly exists. They often resort to the “Trojan Horse” tactic to elicit an emotional response from their targets, frustrate, and evoke hostility with the intent of twisting it around to make the person look volatile, a classic “character assassination” tactic to discredit people, making them appear weak and unstable. Trolls frequently provoke people into a heated argument, and sometimes will go so far as to “report” them as being a “threat” to get them kicked off the forum. Another trick these liars are taught to do is to use semantics to twist people’s words around and make it seem as though they’ve lied, to discredit them and works hand in hand with the Straw Man tactic. These are all character assassination attempts that you will easily recognize happening in social media forums once you become familiar with these tactics.

    https://rebelsiren.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/dispelling-internet-disinformation-tactics-debunking-the-debunkers/

  21. What do you guys make of the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar story? It really throws a curveball into understanding 9/11. By that I mean it makes the CIA look complicit in the plot. But what sort of sound black op would call for this? It’s hard to tell if any of the story is true. It reminds me of the way multiple journalists reported on a dramatic meeting of Mueller and Comey with Ashcroft in the hospital because they were so concerned about the surveillance program. These days I wonder if a single word in that hospital account is true. It also reminds me of Bush in the classroom. The sound reaction would have been for Bush to excuse himself. Even if it was for show this would have been the logical behavior. Instead he stayed there and invited accusations of complicity.

    The fixed case for Iraq WMD is easier to examine than 9/11. We saw a pattern of conduct by which high level officials conspired to lie to the public. Even though there was a hard sell propaganda campaign on being misled by bad intelligence at the end of the day anyone who closely followed the details knew the high level officials deliberately lied the public into supporting the invasion. Remember the Downing Street Memo? Why on earth would something like that be leaked? How does that help the British government to have the world know they conspired with the US to fix the case for invasion?

    Isn’t there something weird about the brazenness of this conduct?

    1. “Isn’t there something weird about the brazenness of this conduct?”~Mike

      Yes indeed, brazen! The weirdness may be explained by the concept of “The Revelation of the Method”. You might look up the term and see what you think of that meme.
      \\][//

      1. I think it’s bunk. The truth movement has asked me to believe a lot of things but that whole symbology thing, no, that’s too odd. If the NWO team is going to do something they do it, they don’t create a secret religion to oh so subtly reveal their plan. You know why the all-seeing eye is used? Because it’s cool. It’s weird. It’s meaningful. No, the same thinking that tells me to believe my eyes when those buildings fell as oddly as they did tells me that the Shell shell is just a pretty shell. IMO.

        1. Jimbo, it’s not that the elites believe the numerology and symbolism, it’s that they want you to think they believe that superstitious pap. Two distinct propositions.
          \\][//

  22. I am a little less leery re the “28 pages” today due to an interview I heard with Who What Why’s Russ Baker. Yes, Baker soft pedals the 9/11 narrative. (He even rejected my comment which was actually sort of complimentary.) Nonetheless, what he said was interesting re the Saudi 9/11 connection and what I took away from the interview was not that they, the PNAC/ Bush crime family were necessarily hefting the blame for 9/11 onto the Saudis but that the Saudis were in on the conspiracy, that they played a part. See, there was this family of Saudi powerful and rich people in Sarasota FL who supposedly housed some of the “terrorists” and just prior to the day abandoned their home likety-split which looked suspicious to the police and was reported in the news and investigated by the FBI. Even if we have proof the “terrorists” weren’t even on the planes it is a fact they were in America taking flying lessons, right? Well, if the 28 pages mention this house abandoning incident and names names and says who knows what else, well then we will have an important part of the narrative to at least do better research and at best blow the conspiracy into mainstream news. I propose the T&S gang be less harsh and skeptical about the 28 pages and try and aid in the effort to get them into the public record.

    1. Baker has not “soft-pedaled” 9/11. He has been censoring 9/11, carefully beating around the bush–pun intended–of the self-evident controlled demolitions and instead leading his gullible supporters on wild goose chases into the much more convoluted and much less juicy conspiracy of some Saudi role in 9/11. A straightforward analysis of Building 7’s motion has no place on his web (http://www.global-platonic-theater.com/Censors,%20Handling/Challenging%20on%20Baby%20Step/baker.htm). His take on the 28 pages is irrelevant to an intelligent discussion of this matter.

      In fact, Baker’s input on 9/11 is even less valuable than that of our resident fanatic A. Wright, who challenges us to counter her/his sophistry so that 9/11 skeptics–i.e. good-faith believers in the official 9/11 myth–can immediately recognize her/him for the idiot that (s)he is.

      Love,

      1. But you can’t deny some Saudi involvement. The named terrorists did come from SA. Bin Ladin was Saudi. The Saudis were allowed to fly home despite the no-fly rule, all that jazz. My contention is that at the least, some Saudi Arabian involvement. Not to mention US. Pakistani and Israeli. More and more I think 9/11 was about the money and not politics or revenge or religion. Rich fuckers wanting to get richer. 9/11 was a heist and a document destroying mission.

        1. The political agenda behind 9/11 is clear and obvious. It was designed to usher in police state control here in the USA and to destroy the enemies of Israel by making them Americas enemies. Many made huge profits from 9/11 as well but that was a side issue or sort of a “bonus” for the perps.

        2. Coincidentally, Kevin Ryan agrees with me that there is more to the Saudi involvement than the 28 pages. I just think the 28 pages might reveal more info and that dissing them outright is a mistake.

          Why Saudi Ties to 9/11 Mean U.S. Ties to 9/11

          Kevin Ryan Washington’s Blog

          Posted on September 27, 2015 by Kevin Ryan

          Media interest in Saudi Arabian connections to the crimes of 9/11 has centered on calls for the release of the 28 missing pages from the Joint Congressional Inquiry’s report. However, those calls focus on the question of hijacker financing and omit the most interesting links between the 9/11 attacks and Saudi Arabia—links that implicate powerful people in the United States. Here are twenty examples.

          http://911blogger.com/news/2015-09-27/why-saudi-ties-911-mean-us-ties-911

          1. Oh I am sure Ryan agrees with a whole lot of what you think Jimbo. Ryan is also a denier of the obvious Zionist ties to 9/11 and is very eager to take focus off of those Zionists and focus it on Saudi Arabia. You post above a link to Ryans work on the cess pit of censorship 911blogger. I quote some of his twenty points below with a little enlightening commentary.

            Ryan says:

            “1. When two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi, came to the U.S. in January 2000, they immediately met with Omar Al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi spy and an employee of a Saudi aviation company. Al-Bayoumi, who was the target of FBI investigations in the two years before 9/11, became a good friend to the two 9/11 suspects, setting them up in an apartment and paying their rent.”

            Adam Says:

            Why does Ryan not mention who was in charge of the FBI when 9/11 happened and who may have scuttled the pre 9/11 investigation of Al-Bayoumi? Why does the name Michael Chertoff not come up in Ryan’s discourse? Chertoff took care of the destruction of the WTC steel and was in charge of the FBI was he not? Funny how Ryan omits his name considering chertoff is a dual citizen Zionist supremacist

            Ryan says:

            “2. Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi then moved in with a long-time FBI asset, Abdussattar Shaikh, who was said to be a teacher of the Saudi language. Shaikh allowed them to live in his home for at least seven months, later saying that he thought they were only Saudi students. In an unlikely coincidence, both Al-Bayoumi and Shaikh also knew Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of Flight 77. Although Shaikh was reported to be a retired professor at San Diego State University, the university had no records of him. He was then said to be a professor at American Commonwealth University but that turned out to be a phony institution. During the 9/11 investigations, the FBI refused to allow Shaikh to be interviewed or deposed. The FBI also tried to prevent the testimony of Shaikh’s FBI handler, which occurred only secretly at a later date. Despite having a very suspicious background, the FBI gave Shaikh $100,000 and closed his contract.”

            Adam says:

            Here we are again with Ryan talking all about how the FBI blocked investigations and even gave one “suspect” $100,000 grand. Could that have happened if Chertoff didn’t want it to? Who do you think at the FBI could have made these things happen? Chertoff perhaps? Well you won’t hear his name from Ryan.

            Ryan says:

            “7. The company that designed the security system for the WTC complex, Kroll Associates, had strong connections to Saudi Arabia. For example, Kroll board member Raymond Mabus, now Secretary of the Navy, was the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the 1990s. Control of WTC security speaks to the question of how explosives could have been placed in the three tall buildings that were demolished on 9/11.”

            Adam Says:

            Why does Ryan not mention the most important person at Kroll Maurice Greenberg who had direct connections through Shaul Eisenberg to the Mossad, was director of the NY Federal Reserve, and who was deputy chairman at the CFR, and was even nominated by Arlen (magic bullet) Specter to become director of the CIA. It is strange how this guys name doesn’t come up in Ryan’s paper either huh but some board member with a much lower possition at Kroll and with nebulous connections to Saudi Arabia gets his attention? Here is some background on “Hank” Greenberg:

            In 1993, Maurice Greenberg’s American International Group (AIG ->), became co-owner of the “private spy agency”, Kroll Associates, as a result of rescuing Kroll from bankruptcy with a cash infusion.

            Kroll was notorious during the 1980s as the “CIA of Wall Street” due to the prevalence of former CIA, FBI, Scotland Yard, British secret service and British Special Air Service men Kroll employed for corporate espionage in takeover bids, as well as for destabilization of foreign nations.

            Maurice Greenberg was deeply involved in chinese trade in the 80s, where Henry Kissinger was one of his representatives. In the China trade, Greenberg became very close to Shaul Eisenberg, the leader of the Asian section of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, and agent for the sales of sophisticated military equipment to the Chinese military. Maurice Raymond Greenberg was born in New York City May 4, 1925, the son of Jacob Greenberg and Ada (Rheingold) Greenberg.

            The young man adopted the nickname “Hank” to make people think of a popular American baseball player with the name, Hank Greenberg. Greenberg served in the U.S. Army in the Korea conflict. He joined the insurance firm, Continental Casualty Co., in 1952. Continental executive J. Milburn Smith recommended Greenberg to the C.V. Starr insurance / spy organization, which made Greenberg its vice president in 1960, its president and CEO in 1967, and its chairman, succeeding Starr, in 1969. From 1988 to 1995, Greenberg was a director of the New York Federal Reserve bank ­ this branch of the system is the main instrument through which Federal Reserve chiefs and the Bank of England traditionally execute their U.S. political-economic policy.

            Greenberg was deputy chairman of the New York Fed in 1992 and 1993, and New York Fed chairman in 1994 and 1995. During 1996, while Greenberg was deputy chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (See Cfr), he chaired the CFR task force on intelligence, which published “Making Intelligence Smarter: The future of U.S. Intelligence.” This report mostly served to exhibit Greenberg’s access to the intelligence community; but he parlayed it into a nomination by Senator Arlen Specter and others, for Greenberg to be Director of the Cia.

            Greenberg has used his connections to covert intelligence, supranational institutions, private bankers and speculators, and his huge global cash inflow, to shape a unique personal empire. Since 1997, Frank G. Wisner, Jr., has been a board member of Kroll , and is currently Greenberg’s Deputy Chairman for External Affairs. Wisner’s father was a founder of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who killed himself over the scandal from his being duped by British-Soviet masterspy Kim Philby. Frank Wisner, Jr., is a director of the George Bush-linked energy giant Enron (a client for whom AIG negotiated payments from Peru over nationalization of Enron operations).

            In the early 1990s, Miami-based private investigator Lou Polumbo joined Kroll Associates. According to sources in the industry, Polumbo brought with him a personal history of involvement with the Medallin and other South American narcotics cartels; his business included helping relocate some of the capabilities of these cartels out of Colombia. The deal to bring Polumbo into Kroll was worked out by Avram Shalom, the former head of Israel’s Shin Beth secret police. Shalom went to work for Kroll; he had been fired as Shin Beth boss due to a scandalous massacre of Palestinians in the Israel-occupied territories by his Shin Beth agents.

            Oh that last sentence is a whopper huh?

            On and on Ryan goes out of his way to avoid the key people at the top who happen to be Zionist supremacists. I could talk about several other of his 20 points but, pardon the pun, what is the point?

            1. The ODIOUS Chertoff, among other things, went onto chair BAE [perfidious Albion/Armaments]
              .
              And KROLL: Jerome Hauer [Prominent Emergency Management Expert Dr. Jerome Hauer Joins The Chertoff Group. December 16, 2014 :http://www.chertoffgroup.com/press-releases.php%5D
              While on September 11, 2001, Hauer was a national security adviser with the National Institute of Health, a managing director with Kroll Associates, and a guest on national television.”
              Part of official narrative [OCT] construction board.

              And, speaking of Wisner : “In 1977, Pal Sarkösy of Nagy-Bocsa separates from his second wife, Christine de Ganay, who then gets together with the N°2 of the US State Department central administration. She marries him and settles in America with him. The world being very small, as everyone knows, her husband is none other than Frank Wisner, Jr, son of the previous. Junior’s responsibilities at the CIA are unknown, but it is clear that he plays an important role. Nicolas[Sarkosy], who remains close to his mother in law, his half brother and his half sister, begins to turn towards the United States where he “benefits” from training programs of the State Department.”
              http://www.voltairenet.org/article157821.html

        3. Can’t deny some Saudi involvement? Sure. But this is not a reason to spend energy analyzing it and reaching out on it. After all, whose involvement can be denied?

          How about an Iranian involvement? The Iranian theocrats have had a decade to explain 9/11 in their media, their schools, their mosques. Yet they apparently prefer to scare Iranians of an impending satanic U.S./Israeli war.

          How about an anti-war involvement? Anti-war groups feed their gullible supporters numerous arguments against the current U.S.-led warmongering, but somehow omit the one reason that even conservative Republicans are capable of understanding.

          How about a North Korean involvement? Comrade Kim and his accomplices spew constant propaganda against U.S. capitalism, militarism, imperialism. But 9/11 is off-topic.

          How about a Baker involvement? Why hasn’t he spent a small fraction of his “investigating” abilities on Building 7’s videos? Why does he instead distract his supporters with much more complex and much more benign problems than 9/11? Are his supporters too dumb to evaluate the degree of resemblance between the motions of Building 7’s destruction and of controlled demolitions?

          The “involved” of 9/11 include just about every bully pulpit that dislikes neoconservatism, meaning just about every non-neocon bully pulpit. The overwhelmingly majority of opinion-makers, worldwide, in all disciplines, are involved. The process that has given them the same blind spot over the Twin Towers’ self-evident terrorist controlled demolition is arguably the 9/11 Master conspirators’ most remarkable accomplishment. How about this line of 9/11 analysis and outreach?

          Love,

        4. I would only change one thing in your statement above Jimbo. Instead of calling them “the named terrorists” I would refer to them as the named patsies.

  23. A.Wright,

    I think it is time to put you on the spot and get a straight answer out of you or send you packing as a troll. So I am re-posting a link to an analysis of WTC 7 that proves empirically that it MUST have been brought down by explosive demolition. HR1 posted this above but here it is again: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7242&sid=32163d44d9e557a9accde0d174b3f60c

    I would like you to review the analysis at that link and either:

    A. Explain to us here exactly how and why the analysis is wrong. Feel free to use other peoples work to do so but you must show where and how the analysis is wrong. Be specific and site which statement(s) are wrong in the analysis and explain how and why they are wrong.

    B. Admit that the analysis is correct and that WTC 7 came down at free fall speed thereby proving controlled demolition brought building 7 down.

    C. Refuse to meaningfully answer or deflect the question thereby proving that you are in fact a troll putting out intentional disinformation about 9/11 and that you refuse legitimate debate when asked a direct question.

    Once exposed as a troll and a purveyor of disinformation (which you are) I would assume Craig would then feel comfortable in banning you on the grounds that you are not here for legitimate debate or discussion but are here for nefarious reasons to hamper or destroy this blog and/or do harm to the 9/11 truth movement.

    1. If I may? Because it really is simple to point out the hole in the argument posted by Aemilius:
      http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7242

      He correctly explains:
      “Buckled columns, whether one or a hundred, whether one at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) won’t just go from 100% to 0% when they buckle, they’ll steadily decrease in strength while they buckle and that takes time”
      and illustrates that with a number of instructive animated graphics.
      When columns “steadily decrease in strength while they buckle”, their upward force decreases steadily, and it follows that the downward acceleration would increase steadily until freefall is achieved (when the column is fully severed).

      And then he presents the very evidence to show that acceleration DID increase steadily over some time interval before freefall was achieved:

      “The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree) observation of a significant well defined period of gravitational acceleration….

      Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall)

      Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)”

      He focuses on Stage 2 red (marked red), but fails to discuss Stage 1 – which is where, at least according to the NIST analysis, there were 1,75 seconds of descent during which acceleration was less than g, such that part of the potential energy could have been expended on buckling columns.

      Now one might doubt the accuracy of NIST’s Stage 1 analysis (in fact, I do, I believe that time interval was shorter), or one might argue that these 1.75 seconds, and few feet of descent happening during that interval, would not release enough potential energy to buckle all columns, but Aemilius presents neither argument – he introduces NIST’s findings on the acceleration profile as “undisputed … independent researchers … agree” and fails to discuss and evaluate the time and energy differential required to buckle columns and to reconcile that with the Stage 1 observation. And that’s the hole in his argument – his conclusion “that an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building” doesn’t actually follow.

      (He is missing some finer points, too, such as discussing the interaction of the wall assembly with the core, which starts to descend a fraction of a second earlier, via the floor girders – the falling body of the wall most likely isn’t actually “free” – it is possible, at least in principle, for the girders to temporarily impose a net acceleration LARGER than g on the wall, such that a measured acceleration of g may not mean actual “free” fall, but a sum of g plus levered beam interaction minus structural resistance. Same applies to interaction of the one wall column that NIST, or Chandler, measured with neighboring columns. East corner, center and west corber of the north wall do not fall in actual unison)

      1. “and (Aemilius) fails to discuss and evaluate the time and energy differential required to buckle columns and to reconcile that with the Stage 1 observation. And that’s the hole in his argument – his conclusion “that an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building” doesn’t actually follow.” Says Jens Schmidt

        Schmidt goes on to explain:

        “the falling body of the wall most likely isn’t actually “free” – it is possible, at least in principle, for the girders to temporarily impose a net acceleration LARGER than g on the wall, such that a measured acceleration of g may not mean actual “free” fall, but a sum of g plus levered beam interaction minus structural resistance.”

        It may be “possible, at least in principle” as Schmidt proposes, however we are speaking to a specific event that is addressed in great detail from many different angles that prove such hypotheses moot. Some of these are the proofs that NIST fudged their report on the collapse of #7 by leaving out the details of how the the support beams were actually physically blocked from their hypothetical walk. So principles are one thing, specific evidence quite another.

        The work of Simon Falkner and Chris Sarns seems to be rather definitive:
        See: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/215-news-media-events-5-of-6-nist-fraud-5.html
        \\][//

        1. hybridrogue1, you are not addressing what I wrote at all, nor Aemilius’ argument. Neither of us is talking in any way about what initially caused the progressive collapse. If NIST is right or wrong with their girder walk-off hypothesis changes in no way whatsoever the facts and arguments about the dynamics of the north wall descent.

          1. Pardon me for misconstruing your argument. NIST is certainly proven wrong with their girder walk hypothesis. So as far as I am concerned your point is moot, and as interesting as it may be , a triviality.
            \\][//

            1. Are you saying my point is moot BECAUSE NIST’s girder walk-off hypothesis is wrong? That would be a non-sequitur! My point concerns the “argument from freefall”, which becomes relevant only several seconds after the east core collapse. The freefall argument attempts to prove that explosives must have severed the north wall columns. It doesn’t speak to what did or did not cause the east penthouse descent.
              If the girder walk-off did not cause the east core collapse, then something else must have – some other fire damage, explosives, thermite, nukes, energy rays, evil demons, you pick your favourite. All that matters is that, as a matter of observed fact, the east core failed, then the west core failed, then the north wall descended at LESS than g, THEN the north wall dropped at g. This sequence opens, theoretically, a window of opportunity for structural support low in the north wall to fail in time before the freefall episode. Hence the common argument, made by Aemilius and made of course by pretty much everybody who sees that WTC7 was a CD, that “freefall means CD”, actually has hole.
              If my point is moot, where does that leave the “freefall” argument?

              1. “If my point is moot, where does that leave the “freefall” argument?”~Jens Schmidt

                As sound as it was before you made your argument.
                \\][//

                1. “As sound as it was before you made your argument.”

                  Well, you, hybridrogue1, were the one who first posted the link to Aemilius’ analysis.
                  I showed you a hole in it.
                  It is slightly disappointing that you ignore that. The argument, at least as far as Aemilius works it out, is NOT sound. Sorry. Your declaration doesn’t save it. An argument would be required.

                  Perhaps Adam Ruff is interested – he wanted to know “which statement(s) are wrong in the analysis and” for someone to “explain how and why they are wrong”. I explained what’s wrong, and why.

                  1. Jens Schmidt, I hope Mr Ruff is satisfied with your explanations. Ask him to comment. It seems to me that I was the second to post the link to Aemilius’ analysis. If I am not mistaken, it was Mr Ruff who posted it on another thread somewhere.
                    Do you just enjoy confrontation? I really don’t have an interest in your point of view. Like I said, if you have the expertise to knock this around with others who think they have the expertise, go for it!
                    \\][//

                  2. Actually I don’t think you have exposed a hole in the analysis Jens. See the issue is that NONE of the decent (beginning, middle, or end) of WTC 7 could have been at free fall speed unless explosives were used. Here is why: Each floor including columns and supports had to give way for the building to fall to ground level. That means that all the perimeter columns from the top to the bottom floor had to buckle, which uses energy and slows the decent Each column on each floor had to buckle and debris on that floor had to be crushed, which uses energy and slows the decent. The static inertia of each floor and it’s contents had to be overcome, which uses energy and slows the decent. All of that makes it impossible to attain free fall speed with a gravitational collapse under any scenario. The only way to achieve any free fall speed at all during any part of the decent (beginning, middle, or end) is for controlled demolition to be used to remove ALL (not some) of the supporting columns simultaneously.

                    Now perhaps your scenario would be possible with a partial demolition of say the lower 10 or 15 floors. That would allow the upper part of the building to fall at free fall for 2 or 3 seconds until it was slowed by the buckling columns and debris that was not demolished and cleared out of the way.

                    In my opinion the analysis is correct and you have not exposed a “hole” in it.

                    1. “Each floor including columns and supports had to give way for the building to fall to ground level.”
                      I don’t see that this is evident for the columns. Each column needs to fail only once. If a column failed (broke) on the 8th or 9th floor then: Once the bottom end of the top part of the column has fallen past and below the top end of the bottom part, they are not going to meet again – the top part of the column will never again be supported by a column part below.

                      “That means that all the perimeter columns from the top to the bottom floor had to buckle, which uses energy and slows the decent Each column on each floor had to buckle”
                      Ditto. Columns need to break only once.

                      “and debris on that floor had to be crushed, which uses energy and slows the decent.”
                      This is truer: There will (or may) still be floors in the way of the descending columns/wall. I’ll propose two scenarios to account for that:
                      a) As a matter of observation, we know the core failed a little bit before the wall, and core failure will obviously drag the attached floors along. This raises the possibility that perhaps the floors, or some floors, were pulled away and detached from the walls (girder-perimeter-connections failed) before the north wall started to descend. In that case, those floors would not be available for resistance (and incidentally, such a tearing-off of floor girders would favour rapid buckling of columns)
                      b) The upper, descending section perimeter columns, interconnected by moment frames and loaded with the weight of almost 40 floor slabe above, overloaded the floors below (designed to only hold the weight of one floor) by such a huge margin that the momentary resistance was too short and too little to even register on the tracking of the descent from video. Think of a man-axe hacking through straw. This would work more or less equally down as well as up (the upper wall would cut floors on the lower part if it descended inside the lower wall; and the lower wall would cut the floors attached to to the upper wall if the upper wall descended outside the lower wall).

                      “The static inertia of each floor and it’s contents had to be overcome, which uses energy and slows the decent.”
                      Not, or to a much lesser degree, if the floors tear away or are cut off like I outline in the two scenarios above.

                      “All of that makes it impossible to attain free fall speed with a gravitational collapse under any scenario.”
                      Since, as I believe, all the possibilities are not accounted for, the hole in the argument remains – IMHO.

                      I am not claiming that the scenarios I propose actually happened. I do claim that they (and potentially other mechanisms) have not been evaluated and accounted for, and that thus the conclusion “the only way … is controlled demolition” remains a non-sequitur. Intuitively plausible, yes, but not rigorously made out.

                    2. Jens Schmidt,

                      Your argument would have some merit were it not for other relevant facts proving explosive demolition of buildings 1,2,&7; your theory makes for an interesting addendum, but is not essential to the case in my view.

                      Are you of the opinion that WTC 7 fell in the manner that NIST describes?
                      \\][//

                    3. “Your argument would have some merit were it not for other relevant facts proving explosive demolition of buildings 1,2,&7; your theory makes for an interesting addendum, but is not essential to the case in my view.”
                      Each piece of evidence has to be evaluated and stand on its own merits. I merely am pointing out that the “freefall” argument, as presented by Aemilius, has a hole. I am further pointing out that the claim, often made in the movement, that “freefall means CD”, is not as rigorously made out as most imply – it is more a meme than a solid argument.
                      What my counter-argument does is to scale back the strength of the claim.

                      “Are you of the opinion that WTC 7 fell in the manner that NIST describes?”
                      Whether NIST is right or wrong with their “most probable collapse sequence” is immaterial to the “freefall” argument. I am comfortable assuming that NIST’s hypothesis is wrong. That doesn’t heal the hole in Aemilius’ argument.

              2. Jens,
                If you would like to present your argument to other experts and request it be added to the literature on the Bldg 7 argument for controlled demolition, I am not the one to plead your case to.
                Good luck in your efforts.
                \\][//

              3. May I entertain this tangent, with a view on closing it?

                “Free fall means CD” is indeed not a correct statement. It is truly an instance of engineering jargon. Engineers happen to boldly communicate as a second nature with shortcuts that baffle lay people, fill physicists with fear, give mathematicians heart attacks, but whose failure rate is too low to be of practical concern.

                When taught to the general public, and in particular to 9/11 skeptics, i.e. people who firmly believe in good faith in the mythical responsibility of Osama bin Laden’s hijackers for 9/11, “free fall” truly is the last in a series of observations of the video record. This is what engineer A means when (s)he shows Building 7’s videos to engineer B and laconically comments “free fall,” and what engineer B understands:
                * the destruction appears to start suddenly as opposed to progressively
                * the destruction appears to start relatively low, perhaps in the basement
                * the facades appear to move in unison, yielding a relatively very small deformation
                * the facades appear to exhibit little rotating motion (just a little tilt)
                * the facades appear to move straight
                * this straight motion appears to be very close to vertical
                * a detailed review of this vertical motion using college-level math suggests that it can be equated with little error to the sudden application of a constant acceleration
                * the constant acceleration in question is indistinguishable from or slightly under (depending on the length of the examined duration) free fall acceleration.

                AE911Truth’s summary diagram (http://www2.ae911truth.org//ppt_web/2hour/slideshow.php?i=281&hires=1) reflects this complete development.

                When explaining Building 7’s conspiracy to lay people, one should add as part of the video analysis the apparent rapid and symmetrical expulsion from the tower’s lower floors, starting before the facades’ motion, of clouds of powder that apparently end up taking several times the tower’s volume. One may also add that the videos suggest that the insides of Building 7 appear to start moving before the facades and that the facades appear to slightly bend towards the tower’s vertical axis.

                And just to preemptively answer another intervention by our resident fanatic A. Wright, engineer B does not immediately understand “controlled demolition,” but “controlled demolition unless some very smart expert would formulate a technically plausible explanation for these extraordinary and unexpected features, which looks very unlikely.”

                Love,

  24. With Saudi Arabia seen as an aggressor, it is easier to shove the ‘Saudi did 9/11’ ROCT (Revised Official Conspiracy Theory) BS down the American throats. You’ll take that easily now that you have seen in Yemen how barbaric Saudis can be.
    Looks like the masters of 9/11 are fastforwarding regime change in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    1. “Looks like the masters of 9/11 are fastforwarding regime change in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” ~kinky

      I highly doubt that. Their leash may be getting a jerk, but I can’t see the US toppling the Saudi’s any time soon.
      \\][//

  25. The 28 pages is a fall back position for the perps and they hope we in the truth movement will take the bait. We are getting very close to the real perps and they are trying to shift the focus off of themselves and onto their patsies the Saudi’s.

    1. God after 12 minutes of watching this video trot out the worst scum on the planet all saying we are conspiracy theorists and have no evidence I had to take a break. There is only so much Michael Shermer, Glenn Beck, Mark Potock, and media whores speaking that I can take at once. I throw up a little bit in my mouth every time I see these slime bags. I will try to continue on with the video after I have recovered from the first 12 minutes. I will take some Mylanta and a few Tylenol and try more after they have taken effect.

      1. 23 minutes in now and I have puked 4 times. Rachel Madcow, Cass Sunstein, Kurt Eichenwald, more Potok, more Shermer, more Beck, sickening. These people are vile scum and traitors to the United States and to journalism in general. I spit on them and the only good point about this whole thing is that they are virtually ignored and marginalized by intelligent people in the world. Those smart people know that the MSM is worthless propaganda and has zero credibility and a tiny audience which continues to shrink. The MSM is dead by their own hand and I for one am glad they have fallen into obscurity.

          1. “How does one post images here?”~Aemilius

            You have to post the URL to an image that is already posted on the web. Go to your browser and click on “Images”… such as:

            \\][//

            1. Are you going to contend that this is a simple “collapse” Aemilius?
              The tower is erupting with the explosive force of a volcano.
              \\][//

  26. 9/11 Victims’ Families Lawsuit: Saudi Arabia Dropped From Case, Judge Cites Country’s Sovereign Immunity
    Posted: 29 Sep 2015 09:00 PM PDT
    A US judge dismissed claims on Tuesday against Saudi Arabia in lawsuits brought by the families of victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks. The defendants accused Saudi Arabia of aiding al Qaeda with financial and material support. US District Court Judge George Daniels ruled that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to override Saudi Arabia’s sovereign immunity.
    http://www.blacklistednews.com/911_Victims%27_Families_Lawsuit%3A_Saudi_Arabia_Dropped_From_Case%2C_Judge_Cites_Country%27s_Sovereign_Immunity/46416/0/38/38/Y/M.html
    \\][//

  27. ‘weaponized’ the CT term. the propaganda assets of deepstate. Makes it easier to watch the odious ones knowing they are witting or unwitting propaganda assets. Still; like swallowing barb wire. But you can see their pattern. Its a good piece of work so far.

  28. I reckon its a really good compilation, well thought out and edited. Drags us through the cuckoo’s nest-the asset snakes pit but the truth tellers easily defeat the toads of deepstate. wish i had choice to edit background music some, but, apart from that. Kudos Adam Green. Its a good piece of work.

  29. Good video! Funny how the mainstream media are guilty of the very things they accuse conspiracy theorists of e.g .disinformation, selectiveness of facts to fit their view, etc.

    1. Aemilius,
      Okay, that didn’t show up as an image on this page – but it’s just a click away, and it is a pic of WTC7 … where do you want to go with this?

      \\][//

      1. Like my post says, TEST…. just getting to know the system here, it’s not like the otherforums I’m familiar with. As far as where I want to go…. someone made reference earlier to the empirical analysis I carried out of the officially and independently verified behaviour of WTC7 and pointed out what they perceived to be an error and I had a mind to respond. I’m not sure that will be possible though because this site is extraordinarily sluggidh on this computer for some reason, hence the testing.

        1. I know I have to get used to other sites as well — I am way familiar with WordPress.
          Ya know, I hadn’t recognized who you were! I thought you were someone who followed me over from YouTube forums — that is why my snarky suspicions. Sorry about that. Yes now I remember! I loved your presentation on the collapse. I hope you can work out the image posting glitches you are having. I’d like to here a full response to Schmidt from you.
          \\][//

      1. Aemilius,

        I think your mistake is in adding other HTML commands to the line.

        Try finding other simple jpgs and be sure to use the full size image if you are taking it off of google images.
        \\][//

      1. Aemilius

        Adding the \\ & the [// is what is spoiling your attempts – did you add those manually? If so, don’t. If not figure out why your system is.
        \\][//

  30. Well I’ve had a few drinks, so maybe I’ll just have myself a little drunken ramble….

    Jens Schmidt – If I may?

    Aemilius – Of course…. please do.

    Jens Schmidt – Because it really is simple to point out the hole in the argument posted by Aemilius:
    http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7242

    Aemilius – Hah! Is it really that simple Jens? Well, that’s rather odd…. because I just checked and my complete Prima Facie Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination (really just an exhaustively stated eighth grade homework assignment) concerning the destruction of WTC7 at the end of a thread called “What is Free Fall?” continues to stand empirically unassailed in any way whatsoever over at the Cambridge University (that’s Cambridge University…. the Ivory Tower where Isaac Newton himself once held the vaunted Lucasian Chair) sponsored website TheNakedScientists for well over a year now (posted Sept 12, 2014). As I recall they locked all previous threads having anything to do with 9/11 there, but for some reason they chose not to lock mine….

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497

    ….and to date (with about 43,000 views now and counting) not one member new or old, not one moderator, not one podcast or other staff member, not one student or credentialed academic at either the TheNakedScientists website itself or Cambridge University generally, particularly Dr. Alan Calverd PhD (a 45 year veteran Cambridge University educated research physicist and regular contributor to the forum) or Cambridge University staff member Dr. Cristopher Smith PhD (a groundbreaking Cambridge Universuty educated neuroscientist, the administrator and creator of TheNakedScientists) has managed to even indirectly address it (no arguments, criticisms, questions, comments, corrections, objections, nothing…. TheNakedSilence?) let alone break it or point out any error in it by simply copying and pasting even one of the simple animations that make it up along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that reads anything like “This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario would not play out as depicted/described in the analysis and here’s why….” followed by any sort of cogently elucidated empirically verifiable objection or perceived needed correction of any kind that would tend to impact the veracity of the information conveyed by it or the inescapable conclusion it quite naturally arrives at.

    Jens Schmidt – He correctly explains:
    “Buckled columns, whether one or a hundred, whether one at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) won’t just go from 100% to 0% when they buckle, they’ll steadily decrease in strength while they buckle and that takes time”
    and illustrates that with a number of instructive animated graphics.

    Aemilus – So far so good…. well, aside maybe from completely ignoring the fact that, in addition to the column animations referred to clearly showing how a column steadily decreases in strength as it buckles, they also serve to show equally clearly that no matter what causes the buckling of a column (or columns as the case may be), that buckling, a mode of natural progressive structural failure, absolutely can not occur at the rate of gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2) like the control shown on the right (in the animations).

    Jens Schmidt – When columns “steadily decrease in strength while they buckle”, their upward force decreases steadily, and it follows that the downward acceleration would increase steadily until freefall is achieved (when the column is fully severed).

    Aemilius – Incorrect (really revolting that anyone could actually write that)…. it most certainly does not follow that the downward acceleration of an object under the influence of gravity encountering continued (constant or intermittent) resistance during descent will steadily increase until gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2) is achieved, the Law of Conservation of Energy effectively renders that a clear physical impossibility…. for any object to descend at gravitational acceleration all of the objects potential energy must uninteruptedly be converted to kinetic energy, or the energy of motion, in the process leaving no energy available for crushing, forcing aside or otherwise overcoming any intervening resistence…. there is no exception to the Law of Conservation of Energy. And as if that detritus wasn’t bad enough you then provide absolutely no precedent setting examples or any empirical data of any kind (defined as verifiable repeatable research carried out by you or someone else) to support anything of what you’re going on about as being even remotely possible. The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how tall a steel frame building is or how long a natural progressive structural failure of a steel frame building is allowed to continue unchecked it can never achieve a rate of downward acceleration where the structural steel beneath the descending upper part of the building will be found naturally progressively failing in a manner indistiguishable from air for any period of time (except for bridges and other structures that pass through air where the condition required for gravitational acceleration to occur at some point following failure exists inherently as a structural feature). One can pick or choose any skyscraper one likes as short or as tall as one pleases and buckle all the columns near the base any way one wishes, no free fall…. there is no such thing as “natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration”.

    Jens Schmidt – And then he presents the very evidence to show that acceleration DID increase steadily over some time interval before freefall was achieved:
    “The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree) observation of a significant well defined period of gravitational acceleration….

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall)

    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)”
    He focuses on Stage 2 red (marked red), but fails to discuss Stage 1 – which is where, at least according to the NIST analysis, there were 1,75 seconds of descent during which acceleration was less than g, such that part of the potential energy could have been expended on buckling columns.

    Aemilius – Acceleration in and of itself is not particularly significant, any time an object moves it accelerates…. in this case it’s the rate of acceleration that counts and the period of time it was observed occurring. That said, I focus on Stage 2 because…. Stage 2 is the object of the analysis! Now, if you mean to suggest that Stage 1 (the observed less than free fall rate of descent prior to Stage 2) may somehow play a role in explaining Stage 2 (the observed gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single unit for 105 feet in 2.25 seconds) and you’d like to include that as an element of analysis that’s fine, but first, in accordance with the scientific method, you’ll have to clearly demonstrate some empirically verifiable collapse mechanism including the relevant physical principle applied (in the same way I applied the Law of Conservation of Energy throughout my analysis) by which the quantity of potential energy represented by the observed initial 7 foot descent of the building in Stage 1 (a litlle over 1% of its height) could conceivably have released enough energy to have so quickly effected the complete disintegration or dismantling of a welded and bolted together steel frame building over a span of eight stories such that the upper part of the building could then descend 105 feet (a little over 17% of its height) in a manner indistinguishable from air in Stage 2. Hah! Just running the model still cracks me up….

    Anyway if you can do that it would certainly merit inclusion of Stage 1 in the analysis of Stage 2 as a contributing factor. Really a bit like trying to conjure a nuclear explosion from a firecracker though…. naturally I’ll wait for you to provide empirical support of some kind for that notion before I consider including it or arguing for or against it. Until then, Stage 1 will (as it must according to the scientific method) continue to be considered as having no more of a connection to Stage 2 than Stage 3 does by virtue of the empirically established fact that no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure can ever match or create the specific condition required for gravitational acceleration of the upper part of a steel frame building as a single unit to occur.

    Jens Schmidt – Now one might doubt the accuracy of NIST’s Stage 1 analysis (in fact, I do, I believe that time interval was shorter), or one might argue that these 1.75 seconds, and few feet of descent happening during that interval, would not release enough potential energy to buckle all columns, but Aemilius presents neither argument….

    Aemilius – One might…. but I wouldn’t. And the reason I wouldn’t pretend to present either of those as arguments is because neither of them even get off the ground when it comes to clearing the bar as scientific method driven arguments…. your doubting the accuracy of the now long independently verified official NIST data on this or believing that it may have taken a tiny bit less time for Stage 1 to play out than indicated by the data does not constitute any kind of scientific argument and is useless for inclusion in any empirical analysis…. there’s simply nothing there to work with. In fact, even if some minute discrepancy were to be discovered and verified (by you or anyone else), it would still not change the fact that Stage 1 could have lasted 1.75 seconds or 1.75 hours, but however long it did or didn’t last, it simply remains a period of time during which the building descended 7 feet at less than gravitational acceleration corresponding to some form of natural progressive structural failure occurring during that period, and since we empirically know that no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure (whether of a long or short duration, whether of a tall or short building) can match or create the condition required for gravitational acceleration to occur, any discovered and verified Stage 1 (or even Stage 3 for that matter) durational discrepancy or even confirmation of the current 1.75 seconds would continue to be seen (from the vantage point of the scientific method anyway) as a wholly irrelevant consideration with respect to Stage 2.

    Jens Schmidt “….he introduces NIST’s findings on the acceleration profile as “undisputed … independent researchers … agree”….

    Aemilius – No, I don’t introduce the NIST findings as “undisputed…. independent researchers…. agree” (accurate quotes please), I introduce the NIST findings on the acceleration profile as a hard fact rendered entirely suitable for empirical analysis by broad ongoing scientific consensus (both official and independent) that confirms the veracity of it beyond any reasonable doubt…. standard procedure in the scientific method.

    Jens Schmidt – ….and fails to discuss and evaluate the time and energy differential required to buckle columns and to reconcile that with the Stage 1 observation.

    Aemilius – No, I haven’t failed to discuss or evaluate anything of proven empirical relevance and you haven’t shown anything like that to be the case (but if any additional relevant empirically verifiable data is presented or comes to light I would not only agree to including it in the analysis…. I would insist on it) The scientific method requires only those factors to be included which in analysis can be empirically shown to have some measurable impact on the result. For example…. empirically, the phase of the Moon at the time would have no measurable impact on the analysis or its result so I need not include it, discuss it or evaluate it. In the same sense, we empirically know (by application of the Law of Conservation of Energy to a falling object) that no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure can ever match or create the specific condition required for gravitational acceleration to occur, so any empirically unsupported theory, speculation or calculations etc. having to do with the time and energy differential required to buckle the columns needing to be quantified (along with any need to reconcile that with anything), like the phase of the Moon, need not be included, discussed or evaluated. No data aquired about how much time and energy is required to intiate the buckling of a column of a given description can explain it behaving in a manner indistinguishable from air immediately following initiation…. dynamic progressive collapse analysis as a whole (building design/engineering, materials science/engineering, heating, buckling, fracturing, overloading, load distribution/redistribution, torsional forces, lateral displacement etc., etc.) can not be used to explain a period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of a steel frame building as a single unit for the simple reason that when an object (or structure) is free falling as a single unit, there can literally be no structure present to consider and hence no collapse to analyse for the entirety of the duration it occurs. For the 2.25 seconds the upper part of the building literally fell at gravitational acceleration, there was provably no resistance from any structural steel below the descending upper part of the building, as irrefutably evidenced by it’s rate of descent at 9.81 m/s2 (setting aside for the time being your yet to be empirically unsupported beliefs, doubts, theories etc.)

    Jens Schmidt – (He is missing some finer points, too such as discussing the interaction of the wall assembly with the core, which starts to descend a fraction of a second earlier, via the floor girders – the falling body of the wall most likely isn’t actually “free” – it is possible, at least in principle, for the girders to temporarily impose a net acceleration LARGER than g on the wall, such that a measured acceleration of g may not mean actual “free” fall, but a sum of g plus levered beam interaction minus structural resistance.

    Aemilius – You say I’m missing the finer points, and then go on to describe this mechanism you say is “possible, at least in principle” by which the core columns some how pulled the perimeter columns down in such a way as to create the illusion of free fall…. What principle? The problem with all this crap (from the vantage point of the scientific method) is that nowhere in your post do you provide any precedent setting examples or empirical support for anything you’re describing as being even remotely possible, even in principle…. in stark contrast to the kind of meticulously factual top to bottom empirically verifiable content making up my graphical target system analysis where every single detail is fully supported empirically and is completely consistent with physical principles…. you’re not doing so well.

    Jens Shmidt – Same applies to interaction of the one wall column that NIST, or Chandler, measured with neighboring columns. East corner, center and west corner of the north wall do not fall in actual unison).

    Hair splitting will not help, and…. Why even bother mentioning any of that if you’re not going to include any diagram or even the column number? Again, perfectly useless as an element or consideration in any empirical analysis…. and equally useless for refuting one.

    Jens Schmidt – And that’s the hole in his argument….

    Aemilius – As clearly shown by all of the above, you haven’t even found a pin hole in my analysis…. it’s air tight. But I easily exposed the Grand Canyon size hole in the middle of your imaginary “argument”, it’s the complete lack of any supporting empirically verifiable data or precedent setting examples that would tend to confirm the veracity of anything you’ve written including your obviously foundationless subjective/speculative criticism of the analysis that has no impact whatsoever on any part of it or the information it conveys…. your “argument” is nothing but unsupported fantasy. The fact is I don’t have any arguments, doubts, beliefs or opinions, and there is no unsupported claim, assertion, speculation or conjecture in the empirical analysis I carried out either, there’s simply no provision for any of that sort of thing in the scientific method…. only verifiable data top to bottom. That said, all I’ve got (inhaling deeply) is an empirically verifiable graphically represented analysis that conclusively demonstrates how and why no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure can ever match or create the specific condition required for gravitational acceleration of the upper part of a steel frame building to occur as a single unit under any circumstances, which quite naturally led to the conclusion that some other force must be introduced to explain the buildings behaviour, the further consideration of which then naturally led to an examination of all the various ways that the now known to be necessary other force that must be introduced to explain the buildings behaviour could possibly have been introduced, and that, by simple process of elimination, very quickly revealed that in view of the fact that no sufficiently energetic material or other potentially powerful force is known to have existed inside the building as a normal function of it’s infrastructure either during or just before the observed period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single unit occurred, and that no sufficiently energetic material or other potentially powerful force was seen to be introduced from outside the building either during or just before the observed period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single unit occurred, the physical transportation of some sufficiently energetic material into the building potentially powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building, either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, some time prior to the event is literally the only remaining possible physically consistent explanation for its observed behaviour that can both easily match and actually be empirically expected to create the specific condition required to explain the observed period of acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single unit at 9.81 m/s2 for 105 feet in 2.25 seconds (whew!)…. that’s all I’ve got really.

    That was fun.

    1. Jens Schmidt – “When columns “steadily decrease in strength while they buckle”, their upward force decreases steadily, and it follows that the downward acceleration would increase steadily until freefall is achieved (when the column is fully severed).”

      Aemilius – “Incorrect […] it most certainly does not follow that the downward acceleration of an object under the influence of gravity encountering continued (constant or intermittent) resistance during descent will steadily increase until gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2) is achieved, the Law of Conservation of Energy effectively renders that a clear physical impossibility…. for any object to descend at gravitational acceleration …” [snipped a lot what follows – but here is the error already, and thus all that follows probably rests on a false premise]

      Dear Aemilius,
      perhaps you should study my argument again and reply when you are more sober, although that might spoil the fun.😀

      Step by step:
      In your original explanation, you wrote that columns “steadily decrease in strength while they buckle”. Accepting this as true, I translate this into:
      “their upward force decreases steadily”
      Is that correct so far, or is it not?
      The downward acceleration of the load on a buckling column is the result of two opposing forces:
      a) The constant downward force of gravity – F(gravity) = m*g = 9.81 m/s^2
      b) The upward resisting force of the (partially) buckled column, that’s F(column) = -m*a(column) (note the negative sign)
      As long as the column is intact, and its capacity is larger than its load, both forces are opposite and equal: F(gravity) = F(column), and it follows that a(column) = -g. The resulting net accelartion of course is 0.
      When the column is fully severed and ceises to resist anything at all, then its upward force F(column) = 0 a(column) = 0, and it follows that the net acceleration of the load is g, that is freefall.

      Everything correct so far?

      Now consider a damaged, partially buckled column that can exert an upward force of only half the load: F(column) = -1/2*F(gravity), then it follows that a(column)=-1/2g, and the resulting net acceleration downwards is 1/2 g.

      Right?

      When a column has juuuust begun ti buckle enough to not be able to carry its load – F(column) < -F(gravity), then by the same logic, the resultung net acceleration downwards is juuuust over 0.
      When the column has buckled so far that it is almost completely severed and exerts only a minimal residual force up, then the net acceleration down is aaaaalmost g.

      Are you following?

      Now consider a column that buckled progressively during the course of 1 second: At first, it will almost, but not quite, resist gravity – net acceleration is just above zero. Then it passes through 1/2 g, then grows toward g, and finally reached g.
      As long as g isn't reached, a part of the potential energy is not turned into kinetic energy and is thus free to inelastically deform the column, in other words: to buckle it further.
      CoE is NOT violated!

      Are you with me so far?

      I'll try to reply more tomorrow.

        1. Jens Schmidt – Dear Aemilius,
          perhaps you should study my argument again….

          Aemilius – What’s to study? Unless I’m misunderstanding things incorrectly you’re saying that in Stage 1 of the NIST probable collapse sequence that the buckling of the perimeter columns immediately following the buckling of the core columns (beneath the East Penthouse) in the first 1.75 seconds could have allowed the load atop them to steadily accelerate downward and that as the columns continued to steadily weaken and the load continued to steadily accelerate that conceivably at some point all the columns underwent a near simultaneous shearing event (or severing, as you put it) whereby a sudden decrease in the resistance offered by the columns occurred such that the upper part of the building was then free to descend at (or very nearly at) gravitational acceleration for the observed 2.25 second period of time. Unfortunately though, like the NIST collapse model that relies on buckling alone to explain observations….

          ….and even if we take for granted the laughably improbable eventual emergence of your added near simultaneous shearing/severing mechanism of many (or even all) of the perimeter and core columns to explain observations ultimately it has little or no appreciable impact on the outcome….

          ….since in neither of the models as they play out to completion (of Stage 1) is anything like the specific condition required for the upper part of the building to have descended at 9.81ms/2 for 105 feet in 2.25 seconds as a single unit (B) seen to arise that would have allowed for Stage 2 to occur due to buckling (A) or even shearing (C)….

          ….revealing your “argument” and proposed “mechanism” to be a clear and obvious physical impossibility and reaffirming once again that there is no such thing as “natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration”.

          At this point anyway you’ve completely failed to support your claim of having detected an error in the analysis (or the inescapable conclusion it naturally arrives at), and so the analysis….

          http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497

          ….continues to stand empirically unassailed in any way, the building was brought down by explosives…. nice try though.

            1. I don’t see the images displayed here on this blog, but I can click the little icons to open them in a separate window. Thanks for preparing them!

          1. @Aemilius
            Unless I’m misunderstanding things incorrectly you’re saying that in Stage 1 of the NIST probable collapse sequence that the buckling of the perimeter columns immediately following the buckling of the core columns (beneath the East Penthouse) in the first 1.75 seconds could have allowed the load atop them to steadily accelerate downward and that as the columns continued to steadily weaken and the load continued to steadily accelerate that conceivably at some point all the columns underwent a near simultaneous shearing event (or severing, as you put it)…
            Correct so far. I make no claims of the failure mode, just note that for columns to exert no resistive upward force, they have to be practically severed. Or “failed”, if you like that better. No need to het hung up on the exact word: Perhaps there are unsevered column conditions that allow for zero resistance.

            …whereby a sudden decrease in the resistance offered by the columns occurred
            Wrong. Cut that phrase out – the decrease in restistance wasn’t “sudden“, it was pretty continuous from 0 to g.

            …such that the upper part of the building was then free to descend at (or very nearly at) gravitational acceleration for the observed 2.25 second period of time.
            Yes.

            Unfortunately though, like the NIST collapse model that relies on buckling alone to explain observations….
            My argument rests in no way, shape or form on any of NIST’s models or hypotheses. It’s ok to peruse their graphics for illustrative purposes where appropriate, but that should not be construed as an applied admission that the deformation they depict are what really happened. For all I care, any and all of the NIST models could be wrong, partially or totally, and still the collapse progression following the EPH descent, as observed, could have been unassisted.
            My argument rests solely on NIST’s measurement of the north wall descent, which, I assume, is qualitatively both consistent with Chandler’s measurements and with reality – the main quality being a gradual increase of acceleration from 0 to g over the course of 1 second (order of magnitude) and covering several feet of drop.

            ….and even if we take for granted the laughably improbable eventual emergence of your added near simultaneous shearing/severing mechanism of many (or even all) of the perimeter and core columns to explain observations
            Urrrrk!
            The assertion that near simultaneous shearing/severing is “laughably improbable” is made without evidence and argument and can thus be dismissed without argument.
            Please provide an argument!

            ultimately it has little or no appreciable impact on the outcome….[GIF of cases A, B, C]….since in neither of the models as they play out to completion (of Stage 1) is anything like the specific condition required for the upper part of the building to have descended at 9.81ms/2 for 105 feet in 2.25 seconds as a single unit (B) seen to arise that would have allowed for Stage 2 to occur due to buckling (A) or even shearing (C)…
            Irrelevant, as
            a) NIST’s specific models and simulations need not be correct to sufficient detail to inform us on what you want to argue here. To the extent that NIST’s models do not reflect the observed acceleration profile, we know from the get-go that the models are inaccurate or false in the details that we are debating here. So scratch them.
            b) You can’t eyeball from those graphics what forces arise at each snapshot of the animation.

            Also, I deny the assertion that the upper part of the “building” descended
            a) “at g” AND
            b) “as a single unit”
            Only the north wall, or even just a part of the roofline of the north wall, has been determined to descend at an average of g for some time interval. The core started to descend some 1/10ths of a second earlier and I believe was already out of sight by the time the facade reached g. This head-start is easily enough for the core to never reach g.

            ….revealing your “argument” and proposed “mechanism” to be a clear and obvious physical impossibility and reaffirming once again that there is no such thing as “natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration”.
            I disagree – your conclusion rests on irrelevancies.

            At this point anyway you’ve completely failed to support your claim of having detected an error in the analysis (or the inescapable conclusion it naturally arrives at),
            At this point you fail to have refuted my argument, possibly even to have grasped my argument.
            Try thinking about from the premises I stated and used, not from the strawman premises I did not use: My arguments rests on the assumption that NIST’s observation of some time interval with acceleration increasing from 0 to g, with a corresponding drop of a few feet, is at least qualitatively true. I do not assume that any of NIST’s models and hypotheses about failure sequence and failure modes are correct! I claim that this “Stage 1” potentially releases enough potential energy in finite time to enable the total failure of all north perimeter columns as observed – a possibility that your explanation denies.

            and so the analysis…. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497 ….continues to stand empirically unassailed in any way, the building was brought down by explosives…. nice try though.
            Minor nitpick, but where is the empiricism in that argument, and where is the argument that it was, specifically, “explosives”?

            Also: Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you not merely conclude that “the building was brought down by explosives”, but more specifically that the columns of the north wall were cut (almost) simultaneously by explosives AFTER the core had already started to descend, right?

            On that note: I know that Tony Szamboti, another of AE911Truth’s (former?) research work horses, believes that WTC was demolished by attacking the core columns only, not any of the perimeter columns. (I think he suggests a combination of pre-weakaning with thermite and a final blast with explosives.) To that extent, I think he believes that the “freefall means explosives at the perimeter columns” argument is invalid. Now I realize that this is an argument from authority, and unsourced for the moment, too, so I am not trying to persuade you, but perhaps three questions are ok, out of curiosity:
            a) Are you, or anyone else reading along here, aware of Szamboti’s claim?
            b) How do you judge Szamboti’s bona-fides?
            c) Do you have a comment on the plausibility of his hypothesis?

            1. “a) Are you, or anyone else reading along here, aware of Szamboti’s claim?”~Schmidt

              No, post a source with that citation.

              b) How do you judge Szamboti’s bona-fides?”

              I think Szamboti proves himself extremely qualified, whether “credentialed” or not.

              c) Do you have a comment on the plausibility of his hypothesis?”

              I don’t buy it if he really said this, and if that remains his position.
              \\][//

              1. No, post a source with that citation.
                I did not find yet where I read this originally. It was on some journalist’s web page, if memory serves. Ben Swann possibly?
                Anyway, googling “Tony Szamboti WTC7 core columns” with this or that additional word, the best two hits I found so far are two forum posts by Szamboti:

                http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/192782-nists-fraudulent-report-collapse-wtc7-9-11-w-2152-2510-a-82.html#post1063349170
                Quote TS: “I was discussing how I believe the building was taken down and that a way to replicate the observations would be to take out the twenty-four core columns over eight stories. The removed core would pull the exterior columns inward over that 100+ foot height and cause them to fail with essentially no vertical resistance and the building would fall symmetrically. If the twenty-four core columns are taken out they would be free-falling and a slight over g acceleration of the exterior would occur due to a whip action when the exterior is first pulled on by the already falling core.
                It is with the utmost probability that WTC 7’s collapse was due to its entire core being pulled over eight stories, starting in the middle of it, and that pulled the exterior inward and down.
                ” (posted June 01, 2014)

                http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10527698#post10527698
                Quote TS: “…The core would have been removed starting in its center and moving outward to effect a pull-in and keep the fall somewhat tight. The difference in timing between inner and outer core columns being pulled would only have been fractions of a second. The core removal, starting at its center, is very likely to be what caused the horizontal kink in the north face as the collapse started.
                The east penthouse being taken out by removing column 79 high in the building and eight stories of the entire core being removed to cause the full collapse shortly after can explain everything that is observed.
                ” (posted March 14, 2015)

                b) How do you judge Szamboti’s bona-fides?”
                I think Szamboti proves himself extremely qualified, whether “credentialed” or not.

                OK, thanks🙂

                c) Do you have a comment on the plausibility of his hypothesis?”
                I don’t buy it if he really said this, and if that remains his position.

                OK, thanks🙂

                My point here is not to persuade anyone that Szamboti is right, but to show that someone, an engineer even, whose research on the WTC is widely regarded as qualified, extensive and solid, can disagree with Aemilius’ assertion, derived as the conclusion from the “freefall” argument, that the perimeter must have been rigged with explosives (provided this IS what Aemilius asserts – waiting for his clarification). You don’t have to take it from “twinkletoes” Schmidt alone😀

                1. “The difference in timing between inner and outer core columns being pulled would only have been fractions of a second. The core removal, starting at its center, is very likely to be what caused the horizontal kink in the north face as the collapse started.”~Szamboti

                  But you will surely note that in the quote section above,Szamboti says, “..timing between inner and outer core columns being pulled..”

                  Which indicates that the perimeter would have also been rigged with explosives.

                  So what is your point?
                  \\][//

                  1. But you will surely note that in the quote section above,Szamboti says, “..timing between inner and outer core columns being pulled..” Which indicates that the perimeter would have also been rigged with explosives.
                    Wrong. Just plain wrong.

                    Read again, carefully, word for word. I’ll help you: “..timing between inner and outer =====> CORE <===== columns being pulled..”. TS isn’t talking about the perimeter there!

                    You had better opened the link provided, and read Szamboti’s post in full:
                    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10527698#post10527698
                    I’ll quote the relevant parts, and emphasize the key statements, to help unrelax your intellectual mind:
                    TS; “Removal of eight stories of the core would have left the exterior unsupported for those eight stories and caused it to buckle. The minimum resistance during buckling over an eight story column length would have been less than 5% of the column strength. The falling core would also be pulling the exterior inward, through the attached beams, so the exterior would essentially fall in free fall and it actually could experience a little higher acceleration than gravity due to a whip action from the already falling core.

                    The only way to get a symmetric free fall over eight stories is for the entire 24 column core to have been removed over eight stories. The mechanics are also right for it to include a slightly over free fall acceleration at the beginning due to the whip action of the already falling core.

                    The problem with accepting the NIST claim of a naturally collapsing interior (core) progressing from east to west is that the exterior of the building comes down over its full length and width simultaneously. There also wasn’t any exterior deformation on the east side when they say it was collapsing first and then spread to the west. The core would have been removed starting in its center and moving outward to effect a pull-in and keep the fall somewhat tight. The difference in timing between inner and outer core columns being pulled would only have been fractions of a second. The core removal, starting at its center, is very likely to be what caused the horizontal kink in the north face as the collapse started.

                    The east penthouse being taken out by removing column 79 high in the building and eight stories of the entire core being removed to cause the full collapse shortly after can explain everything that is observed.

                    He mentions “removal of the core” several times, but never once “removal of the exterior columns”. Instead, he mentions several times that the falling core would pull in the wall via beams to effect the perimeter’s collapse.

                    Get my point now?

                    1. IF your point is really Szamboti’s point, …
                      Szamboti’s point is that it suffices to attack the core columns to make the WTC7 collapse look like what was observed. No explosives or anything needed for the perimeter columns to achieve that bit of freefall acceleration (and, interestingly, even slightly >g).
                      My point is that even an engineer of Szamboti’s stature, who is accepted as a thorough, credible and qualified researcher of the WTC events, can come to reject the claim that “freefall implies explosives on the perimeter columns”. You don’t have to take it from me – even though my argument remains valid regardless of what Szamboti or anyone else opines, until shown otherwise.

                      …I disagree with you both.
                      You and I haven’t seen how Szamboti reasoned himself to his opinion, so it is your prerogative to reject without evidence what has been asserted without evidence, and I am cool with that.
                      If you reject my argument that there is a hole in Aemilius’ reasoning, however, you also do so without argument of your own, which in a rational debate means you can and should be ignored.

                      Jens Schmidt= lackofbettername1 ?
                      No. You and I have not met each other anywhere other than this blog. I had left a couple of comments several months ago and don’t recall if you had replied then, or I in turn. Other than that, you first “met” me only several days ago.

                    2. It’s not my szenario.

                      Since your prejudice won’t allow you take it from me, I am afraid you need to read Szamboti’s words yourself. If your intellectual mind is too relaxed to get what he wrote, I guess I can’t help you much more. Perhaps you try contacting Szamboti himself then, I am sure Craig or some of the other commenters can provide you with his contact info.

                    3. Jens Schmidt,

                      You addressed the collapse sequence of WTC7 – In that sequence which columns would need to have been cut to apply to your hypothesis. I will look into Szamboti’s explanation in my good time. What is YOUR explanation? Which columns would need cutting to match your rebuttal of Aemilius.

                      Your assertion as to my “prejudice”, should take into account that I ask you simple fucking questions like “which columns would be cut”, and you go into another rhetorical fart dance!
                      WTF?
                      \\][//

                    4. …to apply to your hypothesis…
                      What did you do to your intellectual mind? It seems awfully relaxed these days!
                      I did not advance any hypothesis!
                      I pointed out a hole im Aemilius’ argument.

                      Which columns would need cutting to match your rebuttal of Aemilius.
                      None.
                      My rebuttal begins at the moment that the north wall starts its sustained descent.
                      At that moment, all 24 core columns have already buckled, as evidenced by all the penthouse having already dropped a few feet. So for my argument to be valid, no core column needs to be cut, since all are destroyed already.

                      I point out that the ~1 s of <g acceleration can possibly account for the perimeter columns to be destroyed by gravity, as some of the potential energy differential released during that interval goes into material deformation. I say this has not been evaluated by Aemilius or, to the best of my knowledge, anyone else claiming that “freefall means explosives”, so this non-evaluation of the question “was the potential energy gap in Stage 1 sufficient to buckle the perimeter columns?” is the hole in the argument.
                      That’s it.
                      It doesn’t matter for the validity of my rebuttal how the core columns failed, or in what sequence they failed.

                      I ask you simple fucking questions like “which columns would be cut”
                      You have a knack for asking irrelevant or downright distracting questions.

                    1. 55 minutes.
                      Where is the point within that video you wish to make that addresses what we have been discussing? Min:sec would be appreciated, as well as perhaps a short quote of a key claim.

  31. Jens Schmidt,

    hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

    A counter argument to a hypothesis is a counter-hypothesis.

    I am fucking sick and tired of your rhetorical drivel…
    DO NOT ADDRESS ME AGAIN.
    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s