Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **Peachtree Pam** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:53 pm

Here is an interesting article by a poster on LibertyForum which is up on Rense: <a href="http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=293499967">www.libertyforum.org/show...=293499967</a> I think that the person who wrote it just posted. I can't resist it (duck!)

by **Col Quisp** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:22 pm

Thanks, smiths, for the thermite information. You may be onto something there!

by **firstimer** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:41 am

>why 'firstimer' do you seem to consisitently make your commentary attacking on a personal level, its just isn't necessary. first let me say that info like the thermite lesson is exactly what moves this investigation forward. Thank you Smiths. I wish my expertise could benefit the search like that. are they really that personal? I do usually refer to QTUB If thats what you mean. He was the only one positing without adding real research, refusing to acknowlege the strengths of CD theory vs official story. He did start adding quotes at least, to his argument. It must have had some positive effect. Besides it didn't slow him down one bit. I'd guess he's heard it before. I didn't call him a jerk or anything. I did accuse him of being lonely if he wasn't paid, I also said he was human, and acknowledged his other feelings about 9/11 and WOT as being in good intention. I'd say there is at least balance between the personal and the topical comments. If he is a paid disinfo agent, does he deserve any of that benefit of doubt? Did he deny it?, I can't remember and won't look back any longer than this. what's the advantage of not getting personal now and then to get some real effort? The stakes are high in this game (I'm from NYC), I inhaled the dust of my friends on 9/11 and can't access justice because of people blinded by their own refusal to admit they were duped. That is the only logical explanation for continuing to support any part of the official story. They are speedbumps on my highway to justice. "There are people going somewhere, and people going nowhere, I like to hear the people going somewhere" bob dylan said that to me in a dream where people cared about what happened to each other and pursued the answers instead of merely standing in the line of life and pointing. i invite you all to get personal with me if it will shake me into reality. If I'm outa line slug me a good one, an insult right to the kisser. I'll accept it and do better, I'm that kind of guy. firstimer

by **smiths** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:46 am

fair enough firstimer, glad you are that type of guy, occasionaly though the quiet sensitive ones who have a lot to offer pull out if they feel hurt or threatened and i like to hear those voices as well as the confident ones that can take a good one right on the kisser

by **cortez** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:52 am

The logic of the argument should be enough to win a debate, that is what is being had here. I believe QUTB to have been a skeptic, and personal insults do not help win a person over. Yes it is a very important debate, and if we can put enough pieces together to convince the skeptics, we can move forward, as the information with be replicated and used again. Such as <a href="http://implosionworld.com/cinema.htm">Implosionworld videos</a>, we should look close at these ----- These were posted on this board by someone, sorry I can't remember who, but the idea that police officals, and the fire chief Albert Turi's intial thoughts were that bombs were going off in the building is important. Why then would the steel be shipped off as scrap, wouldn't an investigation be warrented? Why were these news reports never followed up on? <img src="http://www.gogomag.com/rs/x_ricksanchez.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Quote:

by **cortez** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:55 am

These video's are interesting as well, as you can hear 3 distinct explosions prior to the building collapse I know, I know I posted this before, I just wanted some feedback, maybe the sound's been manipulated. Anyone? <img src="http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem1/watch.frame.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <a href="http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem1/wtc.2.demolitio.south.closeup.zoomout.avi">Link to Video</a> this is the sound only from from the video above of the south tower .<a href="http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/wtc-south-tower.aif">audio link</a> this is the sound from a demolition in detroit, the hudson building (pretty sure that’s what it is) <a href="http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/jhudson1.aif">audio link</a>

by **Homeless Halo** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:13 am

It was Hudson's, yes. I was there, it was really amazing to watch. (they announced it beforehand and were prepared for people to watch, it was great)

by **thrulookingglass** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:29 am

I picked this up from GNN. Just thought this might add some fuel to the fire (heh heh). Seems another board of "physcists" are having the same argument(s)... <a href="http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=30">forum.physorg.com/index.p...3108&st=30</a>

by **Dreams End** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:53 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If he is a paid disinfo agent, does he deserve any of that benefit of doubt? Did he deny it?<hr></blockquote> Oh...so first timer, if someone doesn't answer your accusations of being an agent they must be an agent. Maybe this is the type of logic that turns off well meaning investigators into 9/11. Qutb has responded repeatedly with substance and logic. He doesn't agree with you so you accuse him of being an agent? You are pathetic. And, oh yeah, I actually support the CD hypothesis. But you are still pathetic.

by **michael meiring** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:58 pm

Hi firstimer, Sorry to hear you are a victim from the lies of your government regarding the announcements that the dust was safe to breath after the towers collapsed. I have all the details somewhere of all the toxic dust that fell, from mercury in the smoke detectors to asbestos in ( i forget now!!). There are many thousands of victims like yourself posioned by this dust. There are victims support groups in various stages of trying to get justice, im sure i can find the details if you would like? Why apologise to someone who never praticed what he preached? One will find, if one does a quick recount of qubts posts that he insulted people more times than anyone on here. if you dont believe me, take any 10 posts from any poster, and take any 10 of qubts posts and count the insults up.......evidence....facts...... He was always calling or inferring people were crackpots that questioned the official conspiracy theory. It must be like trying to defeat the american war machine with a pea shooter, when defending the official conspiracy theory version spun by government PR firms. maybe thats the real reason he left? opening too many barrels of worms and hornets nest's. too many well informed posters ready with facts contradicting the much peddled official version of events/mythology. we may never know what happened to the real planes, too much hypothicies and conspiracies to be sure, its well locked away and hidden under the 'danger to national security' red herrings classification, never to be seen for hundreds of years file. But what we do know is, it sure didant happen the way the government is spinning it and fabricating it. Theres hundreds of volunteers who have respiratary problems, firefightes and police too, all fighting for justice, i wish them well.

by **proldic** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:28 pm

You stoopid m-fers pig-piling on him to your own detriment! I'm ashamed at my own silence. I don't have a brain big enough to swallow this apple (cogently). I'll rant, but here's the nut about how our post-modernist scardey-cat mindsets are going to nail us from within: Wouldn't this thread have benefited from some of Jeff's moderation? The desperate need for clarity. The defensiveness of the "opposition" and their clear inability to follow the laws of tactics, reveals our current state. Seems like all the emotions driving the debate should be laid out clearly and the tactical relevancy of the data sorted through once and for all. If not here, where? If smart people are like: "I don't want to deal with it", like it's yesterday's papers. No wonder qutb quit. It would seem from this thread that he's all alone in the "truth movement", but the fact is he's not -- he's backed up by the 'best'. Just check out this thread and tell me that we shouldn't pin down this truth-or-disinfo as "policy". COME ON. Haven't we learned anything from JFK?

by **proldic** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>…I’ll tell you what -- look at any of these guys (conspiracy researchers) -- look at them carefully -- and see if they create uncertainty. The minute you have someone creating uncertainties you know they’re either witting or unwitting. And there’s very few that are not.<hr></blockquote> - Martin Schotz Should we go forward with everything that we are researching? When do we go from the lab to rolling out the finished product? Are we researchers or activists? Is there a difference? How much can the two roles be combined? Isn’t there a divide at some point? Shouldn't we be thinking like prosecutors, presenting a case to the jury. And hasn't the 'best evidence' (meaning the actual body, or in this case the steel from the building) been compromised? Who controls the whole physical case? The defendants! And we learned from the JFK case that the physical evidence was undoubtably compromised there as well. So it's "Grassy Knoll" all over again. The physical evidence, while “good for a quick fix” has less potential to break through that almost-insurmountable barrier of reaching critical mass with the American public. And it carries the huge inherent risk of being proved wrong. How else do you think they're going about it, huh? When we use generally-popularly-accepted sources, we avoid having to go up against National Geographic, Scientific American, Nova/PBS, etc. This approach does not risk the David Ray Griffin vs Chip Berlet syndrome, i.e.: "Name me one credible scientist who believes in building demolition..."  If we can't dominate the scientific- physical evidence debate, we're probably not on the best ground overall. But if we can say: these 10 credible documents, and these 20 leaked memorandums, and these 30 foreign reports, and the 60 mainstream press accounts -- and that these add up to x and y and you assume z – then, what’s the next step? That’s the point that’s being ignored here. You can't expect the real truth to come out by snapping your fingers. “Physical Evidence” -- can most of the (credible) among us agree it’s at least 50% truth+50% total bullshit? Whereas the cumulative case based on non-physical evidence, based on well-verified ‘mainstream’/international press reports, such as the work by Paul Thompson, starts out the battle as 100% truth. ‘Stand-down’ is real. Shepherding (mi-li-hop) is real. Shouldn’t we also say "100% truth" means understanding mass psychology, and the history of the "grassy knoll" consciousness? We know for sure there was a deliberate neglect of following air defense procedure on 9/11. Despite Chip Berlet's wordsmithing, his explanation doesn't hold up around the air defense question; he has been called on this and “tried to bullshit his way through it totally Chomsky style, with the language sleights of hand”, but actually came off looking pretty disingenuous. We could start to reject the whole kit and caboodle, go like Amy Goodman, then you would have to get in to questioning/defending the activist value of 9/11 ‘truth’ as a whole. The “grassy knoll” consciousness is disabling for mass activism after a certain, limited point. Yes, the 'grassy knoll' is central to the case, undeniable, yet not so much the 'grassy knoll' itself but the later tangential and more speculative theories/evidence, including technical physical evidence interpretations, served to obscure and marginalize the overall truth, defuse the political potential. And I’m not even talking about modern wackery like “the driver turning around and shooting him”. The crucial part to see is the mixture of truth with the larger dose of fakery. Poisoned well. I know it’s frustrating, but it’s uavoidable. If we should know anything about conspiracy or deep politics by now, it’s that they have set up the chess board, arranged the deck, in such a a way as to crete inevitabilities, especially at these key cruciial points, fait’a complis, conundrums, damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t situations. They thrive on those. Now, how to get around that is what we’re facing. Can we? Certainly some would argue truth is everything, and I would agree, but “truth” to me and you on this board and in the converts to 9/11 truth, is different than the level of truth necessary to “swing” the masses of americans, sitting in these decisive roles in a aacdemia, the arts, science, etc. We need to deal with the level they’ve created. I mean if we're suddenly going to wake up after sleeping for 50 years as political people and try to play the game, don't we owe it to ourselves to understand it, and play it well? I’m not saying, sacrifice your principles, but what are your principles, anway, you know what I mean? Got to bring it full circle back to the realities that we’ve already agreed upon, don’t get lost. Stay on point. We’ve agreed that we’re trying to convince the American people, use 9/11 ‘truth’ as a rallying point, a 'snap’ point where the 'average joe' suddenly presses ‘add’ on his subconscious mental calculautor of internalized denied suspicion about the 'government', or the 'elites'. But how many people can actually be swayed with that approach to that crowd? Probably 25% -- 50% max. Because remember this isn’t all working class people, this is certain people from both classes that have deeply-held suspicions about the government already. I mean, I guess the answer to a 9/11 'truth' poll will vary depending on the state of the economy. Or try asking about Clinton’s role, and how real 9/11 truth would taint him too, and watch how it becomes less important. So this percentage, I say no more than 50%, closer to 25%, is willling to believe certain parts of the physical evidence, base their case on “are you fucking blind!?” photo presentations, physical evidence anomolies. An appeal to that distrust, and that gets many people, but not enough in my opinion, but that's what explains their “zealousness” with which the physical evidence proponents present their views. I mean, what’s easier to deal with as an activist? Sitting in front of a supermarket with the sexy stuff -- big photos of the physical anamolies, or try to hand them a list of cumulative facts, not as sexy, but just as (more so) damning, that they need to make up their own minds about? When they get home, I think people are more liable to believe the non-physical case (well-laid) out then the physical case 'giant red pill'. With the physical evidence, we’ve agreed unless you embrace it all (although much of it is contradictory), you have to admit you’re starting with half a deck, that the “other” physical evidence is tainted, but your interpretation (and it may well be) is correct. But people tend to see the physical evidence case as one, so you lose there. I watched the Nova doc, Sci Amer., NIST, etc., saw that they were so well-put together so as to convince the xx% of people necessary. That physics debate someone posted shows it well. Sure I saw areas that they ignored, glossed over, sure I saw someone could see it as a cover up, but I also saw it as well-enough put together that it would hold water with the intellectual academics scientists. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Martin Schotz: …by understanding the overall political context and being able to reason and read between the lines of what is being said, you can understand events. And all of this business of “we need to know secrets” and “they’re keeping secrets from us” -- I don’t think that’s the problem. ?: I notice that you spend some time talking about the review board (A.R.R.B. - Assassination Records Review Board). And certainly you make a compelling case that that effort is somewhat futile...and doomed to failure. MS: When we saw the C.O.P.A. mission statement, what I said to Vince was “If they succeed, they’ll get everyone organized against us” (laughter) “because we’re going to be the only people that they’re not going to” -- I mean, you know, it was just so -- the idea that you’re going to organize the American people somehow around the assassination didn’t make sense to me…<hr></blockquote> 40 “Ridiculous” Things to Think About 9/11 Or how to get to MIHOP in 28 steps using 100% mainstream sources It’s ridiculous to think that…. 1… “Al Qaeda” -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- radical fundamentalist Islamic militants -- aren’t a real, extremely well-funded Islamo-fascist international paramilitary force, its life birthed into its skeleton from the dust-bones of feudal history by the CIA, its flesh fattened by the capitalist trans-national elites, and its arms wielded by the CIA -- a CIA determined to engage in high-profile terrorism against the US population. 2...the CIA wasn’t the core reason for the re-birth and existence of "Al Qaeda". 3…the CIA doesn’t have a long record of using "Al Qaeda" to serve it’s needs (Afghanistan, Balkans, Africa, Chechnya, Southeast Asia, ) 4…huge numbers of people throughout "the beltway", much of the Middle Eastern (Israeli, Pakistani, Egyptian, etc.) communities in the US, and the leadership of the armed forces didn’t know 9/11 was coming. 5…huge numbers of people didn’t pre-plan to take advantage of 9/11, both financially and politically. 6…the highest levels of the the government didn’t block investigations into the 9/11 hijackers 7…this blocking was due solely to financial corruption, or to serve special foreign interests 8...the highest levels of the US government didn’t know the precise date, time, and place of the attacks 9…the majority of the people working in FAA, Norad, Air Force, had to be “in on it” 10...the hijackers that boarded the 9/11 planes weren’t real Al-Qaeda suicide hijackers fully trained and willing to hijack and take command of a passenger aircraft. 11...the weapons that were used in the hijackings weren’t planted in advance. 12...the planting of weapons aboard the aircraft could have happened without the collusion of either the flight crew, the ground crew, or airport security. 13…the state of airport security on 9/11 was such that the pre-planting of weapons could not have occurred. 14…certain forces within the government weren’t pre-positioned at the scene of the crime previous to the event 15…the US air defense system was unprepared to deal with the events of 9/11 16…the people working in air traffic control and the FAA did not know within minutes that there were multiple hijackings. 17…the civilians working in air traffic control and the FAA did not notify the US military and air defense structure immediately. 18... that the information relayed to the US military and air defense structure by the civilian air traffic control and the FAA was not immediately disseminated to the highest levels of the US intelligence community and the military and Air Force command-and-control structure, including the White House. 19…the US intelligence community, and the military and air defence command structure, and the Secret Service weren't all monitoring FAA commmunications in real time. 20...the highest levels of the US military and air defence command structure didn’t realize the significance of the events unfolding long before the first plane hit the tower. 21...the actions ordered to be taken by the Air Force base commanders and pilots were due to uncertainty about the situation 22…by any conceivable standard was“Standard Operating Procedure” followed on 9/11. 24…the violations of Standard Operating Procedure by the US air defense system on 9/11 was due to 'confusion' 25…this doesn’t indict the highest levels of the US military and Air Force command-and-control structure including the White House 26…the highest levels of the US intelligence community and the military and Air Force command-and-control structure, including the White House, did not let the 9/11 attacks happen on purpose. 27…the 9/11 attacks could have happened as they did without the direction of the highest levels of the US intelligence community and the military and Air Force command-and-control structure, including the White House. 28…the the highest levels of the US intelligence community and the military and Air Force command-and-control structure, including the White House, did not make the 9/11 attacks happen on purpose. 29...there hasn’t been a sophisticated cover-up including alteration of records, spreading of disinformation, and assassinations. 30…the sophisticated cover-up hasn’t included the massive spreading of sophisticated red herrings within the “9/11 Truth” movement. 31…these red herrings aren’t found mainly within the “physical evidence” community of 'researcher-activists'. 32…the elements of the government that were pre-positioned on 9/11 didn’t take control of the crime scene and the disaster operations and ship the “best evidence” (for controlled demolition) to China. 33…. the fact that the elements of the government that were pre-positioned on 9/11 took control of the crime scene and the disaster operations, and shipped the “best evidence” to China, necessarily means that the steel would have revealed controlled demolition. 34…some of the anomolies reported to have occurred regarding the physical evidence of controlled demolition aren’t real. 35…all the anomolies reported to have occurred regarding the physical evidence of controlled demolition are real. 36…it’s inconceivable to the average person that the injection and ignition of at least xxx,000 lbs of jet fuel into the xx and xx floors of a xxx-floor high rise could not have caused the building to collapse. 37…Al Qaeda had not been publicly stating their determination to knock the towers down for years. 38…Al Qaeda had not been openly planning to fly planes into major buildings in the US for years 39…the 'physical evidence' crowd can argue in public at this stage with NIST, American Scientific, etc. and 'win' 40...the 'political consciousness-raising' value of 9/11 'Truth' is better served by repeating physical evidence anomolies and pleas-for-rejection of 'mainstream science' than repeating the established, non-disputable historical record. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=proldic@rigorousintuition>proldic</A> at: 11/11/05 4:11 pm

by **Dreams End** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:52 pm

yes. Well put proldic. But you are still killing sacred cows or at least wounding them. So be prepared for attacks from the bulls. See, boys and girls, this is what a DEBATE is. Looking at issues from all sides and maybe even strategizing together about it's strengths and weaknesses before you go out to your local activist groups. Next time someone challenges your arguments, if they do it in a rational manner, thank them for allowing you to think deeper and from different angles about an important problem. It will strengthen your case. Many of us know many different things. I'm no physicist, though I was disturbed by how quickly the buildings fell. But I do have a level of knowledge of crypto-fascist groups who like to spin disinfo...so that's what I can bring to the table. Others have different perspectives. Qutb had, I think, the deepest awareness of mid-east politics and the various players and their connections. I really would have valued his input on the recent assassination...er...suicide in Syria. Please learn to be grownups. Challenge, refute, point out weaknesses and ultimately agree to disagree. But don't call someone a freaking agent because he doesn't see things your way. Sheesh.

by **NoNostalgia** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:01 am

look, I've seen the footage of wtc7. There is no way that building came down of it's own accord. I can't believe anyone even bothers to argue about it.

by **Ferry Fey** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:22 am

I just did a bit of checking with the Social Security Death Index. Ran it via Rootsweb, genealogy.com, and obitcentral.com. No entry for Craig James Miller, the Secret Service agent alleged to have been killed in the destruction of WTC 7. Not all accounts agree that anyone died in WTC 7. The LDS (Mormon) familysearch.org gives two, but none on 9/11: Craig MILLER - U.S. Social Security Death Index Birth: 20 Jul 1972 State Where Number was Issued: Washington Death: 28 May 2001 4. Craig MILLER - U.S. Social Security Death Index Birth: 24 Dec 1946 State Where Number was Issued: California Death: 5 Aug 2001

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

WTC 7

Re: what could do it

personal? I'll show you personal

glad

The logic of the argument

Re: The logic of the argument

yep

Re: 'nother board arguing CD

Re: 'nother board arguing CD

victims support groups

Sick to throw it off on qutb like this -- shame

physical v non-physical case

Re: physical v non-physical case

Re: physical v non-physical case

Craig James Miller, Secret Service WTC7 death?

Who is online