'9/11 is the Litmus Test' - a recap and appeal...

[Thermate911]

[TonyGosling]

Moved to articles but may be better as an event?

Is this in some way an event in competition with the 15 April Aaron Russo inspired event?

[Keith Mothersson]

[Stefan]

The psy-op line is among the hardest to swallow of all of Wood's claims.

She refers to things such as "decoy squibs" - the general idea being to paint a picture where all of the solid evidence for controlled demolition, for molten metal, for the use of incendiaries was faked to throw people off the path to DEW.

There are 2 problems with this:

1) It's the same crime.

What is the difference between the sentence for mass murder with explosives and mass muder with a beam.

None.

But there is a difference between the two claims:

2) The evidence for CD is solid, whereas the case for DEW is wholely theoretical - they planted evidence for the stronger case to distact attention from the non-existent case?

They created REAL EVIDENCE of a mass murder which could only have been perpertrated from within the establishment, evidence they cannot erase, in order to throw people off the scent of THE EXACT SAME CRIME commited through a different method, for which there was NO EVIDENCE and the nature of which meant it would never be taken seriously....

Does this not at all ring alarm bells, Keith, that DEW is the psy-op and CD is the truth which is being attacked? Why can some people not see this?

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks Keith - a superb summary.

Oddly Stefan still seems to support "Pure CD" when we now have strong evidence which can't be explained by CD.

1) Upturned Cars
2) Witness reporting an ambulance being lifted off him when he hid under it.
3) Metal effects such as bending beams into a loop which explosives can't do
4) Spontaneous car fires before the main collapse and reported by witnesses.
5) Rapid rusting of steel.
6) Holes in the street

etc etc

This leaves those supporting traditional CD alone in the essentially the same position as those supporting the official story - they ignore the evidence which doesn't fit the theory. (And this isn't the same as saying the DEW alone caused all the damage, but the evidence indicates it as the primary destruction method).

Looks like Stefan and others are happy to ignore evidence posted in the web pages and videos we've done. Stefan is therefore likely do draw incorrect conclusions.

In any case, I hope Stefan is working on a legal case to present CD evidence in court - perhaps he can get a group together in the States and do it? He seems to know enough and be confident enough - should be a doddle!

If no one is doing something along these lines, then what's the point of 9/11 truth campaign? To stand around and ask for the government(s) to invesigate itself/themselves again?

[Stefan]

[Keith Mothersson]

I do disagree about the evidence of molten metal being reliable, for reasons outlined at some length by Wood in the references above, whose arguments/evidence seem strong to me. I could be wrong, but your not challenging the Wood/Reynolds challenge to the reality of the molten metal reports/video/pictures doesn't take me any closer to agreement with you on that one.

We do agree about Destruction of the towers by Insiders. Yes, it is the SAME CRIME of MURDER, War Crime, etc, however effected.

However what we saw (and were perceptually coached not to see) wouldn't have been SO scarily weird if ordinary CD had been used, so wouldn't have served to traumatise and overawe and confuse and mind-abuse the psyche of the American/global public so thoroughly. (Like ritual slaughter of the President on the 33rd parallel - see Kris Miligan's essay in his great Skull and Bones book: its very brazen-ness and publicness is essential for max effect.)

But just as the FFT Designers built in a series of fall-back positions regarding who us lot should go after for 911 if and when the official story started to crumble - Saudis [Michael Moore] , then Pakistanis, then 'the Jews' (i.e. as Jews, beyond the empirical question concerning the degree of high-level Israeli-Zionist), and now this Thermate-linked AL-Qaeda-Saddam-French connection story is coming up on the rails fast, I fear

, so they also had a series of cover stories for people to be fobbed off with concerning the modus operandi and technoligies involved: beginning with the BBC, etc all assuring us that aircraft fuel could melt steel buildings -
whose core was 'essentially a hollow shaft' (that'll be right).

These claims were such bs to those who knew that it was only a matter of time before by collective learning and sharing of knowledge as we do on the web [at our best] that good websites emerged on the physics of the building collapses, despite maximum efforts deployed to keep us arguing on less clear cut ground: LIHOP and how the spooks should have stopped them but were blocked by other spooks/agencies, for instance.

When it became clear that the 911 truth movement kept making its way, albeit often wasting energy in huge feuds about how the planes were substituted or hijacked electronically or had missile pod underneath it, etc ....

the decision was taken to send in Prof Jones to gain ascendancy by first going along with us, and then shifting our eggs into the Thermite basket.

A) this meant attention was diverted from the really big secrets = power, concerning 'Black' Technology, the involvement of a huge section of the Military Industrial complex - not just a few bad guards like Marvin Bush and Wirt Winkler III who let the Thermite-bringing really bad guys (=Muslims) into the camp - just as Cheney might need to be sacrificed (as Mineta has prepared gthe ground for) for supposedly letting 'the planes' [dots on screens] arrive/'arrive' without being stopped by air-defences;

B ) It also meant that 911 Truth was open to counter-attack by physicists - as in the Journal of 911 Studies Debunking. YES I agree that the speed should be decisive - and have argued for years on that basis, but the breakthrough still eludes us. Putting eggs in the Thermite basket enables defenders of the OCT to score cheap points without facing the speed of 'collapse' = destruction clincher.

C ) if that doesn't divert or block the tide of 911 truth then at least 'they' had another trick up their sleeve - With one bound they are free ! - or hope to get free e.g. maybe a false flag event attributed to Al-Q in Iraq working with Saddam die-hards [Bin Laden video, and cue a spate of internet rumours that Saddam didn't really die, just a double! ] - the same Al-Q in Iraq who smugggled in the themite and infiltrated the Towers !

So I agree about CD at WTC7 but do believe that for reasons of capturing the public imagination aka deprogramming from the War-on-Terror Myth and Civic Religion/National Security cult that that won't (alas carry us unless a new paradigm emerges which addresses the source of the mind-abuse that day. Our minds don't work by abstract logic alone - as shown by several failed attempts to prove to loved family members that 911 was an Inside job by refeence to Apples falling fasger through apples than air .... and the top floor of a building falling slower through the building than if it falls through air ...

I don't agree about conventional CD at the twin towers, and am suspicious of the figures being cited by FEMA et al about the scale of the shipping out of steel. But I do agree that some conventional explosives, enanced by thermite or not, may have been used on 9/11 - not just in the clean up. If they did trial an extraordinary new kind of technology that day, and it was central - not just peripheral - in its destructive impact that day - then they wouldn't want that fact to be known - "Now how do we father that on Bin Laden? " - so it isn't impossible that some squib effects could have been built in - especially since they stood ready to attribute them to compressed air escapng through shafts, etc until they might need to fall back on the big switch to imported Thermite.

I find people are really intrigued by the toasted cars phenomena, so if it is a psyop dead end, then I guess it will distract some people (like me for a while. If it isn't a psyop, then I think it will bring new energy to our cause of truth.

But ultimately I think it will be recognised that the destruction of - and residuum following - the destruction of WTC7 were just so different from what the fall of the towers looked like , together with the weird pattern of damage to the other buildings in the complex and the relative lack of remains after WTC2 and 1 'fell' .

But on this last point I do think that Wood has some way to go to clinch her argument. (Interestingly, so had Einstein some way to go - but his theory caught on prior/the paradigm shifted prior to the experiment which finally clinched it, I understand. )

On your side you also will also need to keep checking the evidence m(and your heart) in case you are in denial or 'adding epicycles' ... for example if you think Andrew's Point 4

[Stefan]

Will post a fuller reply to the bulk of your text later Keith (at work now), but to make my position on controversies clear:

I support No-Plane Theory variants remaining in controversies

I support DEW Theory variants remaining in controversies

I would happily agree to Thermate/mite theories also being in controversies since it is clearly contentious

In a sense any detailed theory is in essence controversial because it must involve no small amount of speculation, and is essentially unnecceary and a side persuit to demonstrating and campaigning on the patent falsity of the official conspiracy theory, which is the meat and potatoes of our campaign.

However -

I do not agree mentions of hijackers should be a controversial issue - here is why:

The rational and most credible way of dealing with a lie like 9/11 is to take it piece by piece and do all we can to make the questions remaining as loud as we can make them, to demonstrate falsities where they exist.

We start we the OTC because that is where the people who are our auidence (the initiated to deep politics) are - and we disprove things.

Providing replacement theories should be seen as a somewhat separate pursuit and one I would prefer to leave to qualified scientists.

We do not KNOW there was no element of hijacking involved - to assume this is to start from a position where the official story is 100% false and piece by piece dream up alternatives.

This is not credible and is not going to catch the ear of the people we are actually trying to get through to - it feels to me that if we go down this road we become a "conspiracy club" and not a campaign.

[Alulim]

[brian]

To argue that Professor Jonses' late entry into the 911 movement puts a question mark against him is to argue that every physicist that has not stood up to be counted is complicit. IE it is just plain daft.

To argue that the thermate angle is some sort of cunning plan that involves al Qaeda being blamed for its placement is bizzare.

Can anyone really believe that NIST and the government can now turn round and say we have spent the last 7 years defending the literally impossible free fall but now we accept that and declare that al Qaeda smuggled in thermate and somehow strategically placed it in the towers?

That would be the end of them full stop.

The official story would be as effectively demolished as the towers - by their own hand.

The link to DEW Judy Wood put in the appeal to NIST which she claimed supported her contention that DEW was used is evidence enough that this woman is at best cavalier in her approach to the matter. To my mind she is either a fantasist or a plant.

[Thermate911]

Interesting the way this thread has gone off down the rabbit hole again. The central issue of Les's article is to my mind embedded in the first two paragraphs - paragraphs that nobody here seems willing to comment on:-

[kbo234]

[Keith Mothersson]

It was a powerful piece of writing, but
a) some of us have been using 9/11 as a pretty good litmus test for years, and saying much the same for four years - yet a breakthrough eludes us;

b) it is only divisive to be abusive of each other's perspectives and sincerity - not to say: wait a minute, before we go such a bundle on getting everyone to agree on '911' being an 'inside job', is it possible that we haven't seen 9/11 accurately enough in the first place, so that we don't quite know who the Insiders are who did this inside job - mil-industrial complex, black budget fraternities, media-intel complex must also be fully in the frame along with Neocons and Mossad;

c) also is it possible that the Thermate hypothesis is being quietly prepared for mainstreaming so that those other frats I mentioned in b) can by and large escape the full enquiry/wrath of the people, but all the blame could be put on a few rotten apple insiders who let in the really bad barbarians who remain Al Q (via this new and dangerous tale of 66 tons of thermite precursors from Saddam's rocket programme)?

So we could merely appear to win but our opponent could then twist our victory against us?

[Andrew Johnson]

[marky 54]

[rodin]

In all this DEW v Thermite argument whatever happened to the micronukes hypothesis? Much more likely than DEW and can also account for certain unconventional happenings like the cars, the people being vapourised etc.

Micronukes would probably point directly @ Dimona, if what Joe Vialls posted about Bali was well informed

That would not fit the blame the US and cause a revolution agenda that would be so very Rothschild