As the 14th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, it’s important to remind people that we still don’t know what happened that day. What is known about 9/11 is that there are many incredible facts that continue to be ignored by the government and the mainstream media. Here are fourteen.
An outline of what was to become the 9/11 Commission Report was produced before the investigation began. The outline was kept secret from the Commission’s staff and appears to have determined the outcome of the investigation.
The 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three (63) times in its Report that it could find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes.
One person, Shayna Steiger, issued 12 visas to the alleged hijackers in Saudi Arabia. Steiger issued some of the visas without interviewing the applicants and fought with another employee at the embassy who tried to prevent her lax approach.
Before 9/11, the nation’s leading counter-terrorism expert repeatedly notified his friends in the United Arab Emirates of top-secret U.S. plans to capture Osama bin Laden. These treasonous leaks prevented Bin Laden’s capture on at least two separate occasions.
Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught stealing documents from the National Archives that had been requested by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission had previously been denied access to the documents but the White House reluctantly agreed to turn them over just as Berger was trying to steal them..
The official story of the failed air defenses on 9/11 was changed several times and, in the end, paradoxically exonerated the military by saying that the military had lied many times about its response. The man who was behind several of the changing accounts was a specialist in political warfare (i.e. propaganda).
Military exercises being conducted on the day of 9/11 mimicked the attacks as they were occurring and obstructed the response to the attacks. NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart sponsored those exercises, failed to do his job that day, and later lied to Congress about it (if the 9/11 Commission account is true).
A third skyscraper collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11. This was WTC 7, a 47-story building that the government’s final report says fell into its own footprint due to office fires. The building’s tenants included U.S. intelligence agencies and a company led in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Meetings were scheduled there to discuss terrorism and explosives on the morning of 9/11.
News agencies, including BBC and CNN, announced the destruction of WTC 7 long before it happened. One BBC reporter announced the collapse while viewers could see the still-standing building right behind her in the video. Years later, after claiming that it had lost the tapes and then found them again, BBC’s answer to this astonishing report was that everything was just “confusing and chaotic” that day. Of course, one problem with this is that the news agencies predicted the exact building, of the many damaged in the area, that would collapse. Another big problem is that no one could have possibly predicted the collapse of WTC 7 given the unprecedented and unbelievable official account for how that happened.
Construction of the new, 52-story WTC 7 was completed two years before the government knew what happened to the first WTC 7. In fact, when the new building was completed in 2006, the spokesman for the government investigation said, “We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” The construction of the new building, without regard for how the first one was destroyed, indicates that building construction professionals in New York City did not believe it could ever happen again.
Ultimately, building construction codes were not changed as a result of the root causes cited by the National Institute for Standards and Technology for destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. This fact shows that the international building construction community does not believe that the WTC buildings were destroyed as stated in the official account.
AMEC, the company that just finished rebuilding the exact spot where Flight 77 was said to hit, was put in charge of cleanup at the WTC and the Pentagon. The man who ran the company, Peter Janson, was a long-time business associate of Donald Rumsfeld.
The response of the U.S. Secret Service to the 9/11 attacks suggests foreknowledge of the events in that the agency failed to protect the president from the obvious danger posed by terrorists.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the FBI of suspected 9/11 insider trading transactions. That evidence was ignored and the suspects were not even questioned by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission.
There are, of course, many more incredible facts about 9/11 that continue to be ignored by authorities and much of the media. Let’s hope that the next major terrorist attack results in legitimate reporting and unified calls for truth before fourteen years have passed.
Right, and in this list of fourteen so called incredible facts, fully thirteen of them are currently either circumstantial, irrelevant or moot and all of them are inconclusive for getting to the bottom of what happened that day, and the one fact that is genuinely incredible, the 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of WTC7 is essentially watered down and made to appear inconclusive when the fact is it literally renders all the other events that day academic, while at the same time clearly revealing literally the only ones who could possibly have done it.... the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency.
Quote:
Kevin Ryan
As the 14th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, it’s important to remind people that we still don’t know what happened that day.
Absolutely untrue. When it comes to WTC7, though the possible composition and placement of the energetic materials employed may be endlessly debated, the fact (as conclusively revealed by empirical analysis) that they were indeed composed and placed can not, and the list of tenants positively identifies literally the only ones who could possibly have carried out a covert domestic operation of that magnitude in that (at the time highly secured) building, namely, the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, headed at the time by General Richard Meyers and George Tenet respectively. No one in the Department of Defense could have done it without the Central Intelligence Agency being aware of it, and no one in the Central Intelligence Agency could have done it without the Department of Defense being aware of it..... I know (in the empirical sense of the word) that WTC7 was destroyed by energetic materials deliberately placed in the building, and I know (as conclusively revealed by building occupancy records) that the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency (including General Richard Meyers and George Tenet) actively participated in planning and orchestrating the physical destruction of the building, and regardless of any other conclusions reached about the destruction of the Towers, the Pentagon or Shankesville, the empirically established fact that WTC7 was brought down by the intentional use of energetic materials is alone enough to justify the immediate arrest of both General Richard Meyers and George Tenet. The fact is we do know what happened that day beyond any reasonable doubt....
What is known about 9/11 is that there are many incredible facts that continue to be ignored by the government and the mainstream media. Here are fourteen.
An outline of what was to become the 9/11 Commission Report was produced before the investigation began. The outline was kept secret from the Commission’s staff and appears to have determined the outcome of the investigation.
Circumstantial, nothing conclusive, though it could possibly become a point of interest as a criminal investigation unfolded and revealed new details.... not incredible.
Quote:
The 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three (63) times in its Report that it could find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes.
Not conclusive or specifically indicative of anything. Again, though it could possibly become a point of interest as a criminal investigation unfolded and revealed new details.... not incredible.
Quote:
One person, Shayna Steiger, issued 12 visas to the alleged hijackers in Saudi Arabia. Steiger issued some of the visas without interviewing the applicants and fought with another employee at the embassy who tried to prevent her lax approach.
Irrelevant when it comes to WTC7. The empirically established fact is that WTC7 (at the time a highly secured building) was destroyed by the physical placement of energetic materials within the building. No plane hit it and the planes that hit the Towers have been ruled out as being able to explain the buildings observed behaviour. The falling debris from the Towers has also been ruled out as being able to explain the buildings behaviour.... neither the aircraft nor the destruction of the Towers (as conclusively revealed by empirical analysis) could have created the condition required for the gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building to occur, so flying terrorists and falling Towers are excluded from consideration as being in any way responsible, and so are terrorists on the ground as they could never have penetrated the buildings security without being detected.... not incredible.
Quote:
Before 9/11, the nation’s leading counter-terrorism expert repeatedly notified his friends in the United Arab Emirates of top-secret U.S. plans to capture Osama bin Laden. These treasonous leaks prevented Bin Laden’s capture on at least two separate occasions.
Again, with regard to WTC7, the empirically established fact that it was destroyed by the physical placement of energetic materials within the building renders that irrelevant. No terrorists sent by Osama bin Laden could possibly have breached the buildings tight security in order to place the energetic materials required to destroy it so anything having to do with Osama bin Laden is logically excluded from consideration as being in any way responsible.... not incredible.
Quote:
Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught stealing documents from the National Archives that had been requested by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission had previously been denied access to the documents but the White House reluctantly agreed to turn them over just as Berger was trying to steal them.
This has no impact whatsoever on the empirically established fact that WTC7 was destroyed by the intentional placement of energetic materials in the building. He could have been acting alone or in concert with others, and though it could possibly become a point of interest as a criminal investigation unfolded and revealed new details.... not incredible.
Quote:
The official story of the failed air defenses on 9/11 was changed several times and, in the end, paradoxically exonerated the military by saying that the military had lied many times about its response. The man who was behind several of the changing accounts was a specialist in political warfare (i.e. propaganda).
Again, no impact whatsoever on the empirically established fact that WTC7 was destroyed by the intentional placement of energetic materials within the building, and again, though it could possibly become a point of interest as a criminal investigation unfolded and revealed new details.... not incredible.
Quote:
Military exercises being conducted on the day of 9/11 mimicked the attacks as they were occurring and obstructed the response to the attacks. NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart sponsored those exercises, failed to do his job that day, and later lied to Congress about it (if the 9/11 Commission account is true).
Whoever sposored the exercises, it was General Richard Meyers in his capacity as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that would have had to have approved them so, though dereliction of duty on the part of NORAD Commander Ralph Eberhart could possibly become a point of interest as a criminal investigation unfolded and revealed new details.... not incredible.
Quote:
A third skyscraper collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11. This was WTC 7, a 47-story building that the government’s final report says fell into its own footprint due to office fires. The building’s tenants included U.S. intelligence agencies and a company led in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Meetings were scheduled there to discuss terrorism and explosives on the morning of 9/11.
It wasn't just some "U.S. intelligence agencies", it was the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency headed (at the time) by General Richard Meyers and George Tenet. The fact that there was a company in the building led in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney or that there were meetings scheduled that day to discuss terrorism and explosives on the morning of 9/11 is irrelevant, and though it could possibly become a point of interest as a criminal investigation unfolded and revealed new details.... not incredible.
Quote:
News agencies, including BBC and CNN, announced the destruction of WTC 7 long before it happened. One BBC reporter announced the collapse while viewers could see the still-standing building right behind her in the video. Years later, after claiming that it had lost the tapes and then found them again, BBC’s answer to this astonishing report was that everything was just “confusing and chaotic” that day. Of course, one problem with this is that the news agencies predicted the exact building, of the many damaged in the area, that would collapse. Another big problem is that no one could have possibly predicted the collapse of WTC 7 given the unprecedented and unbelievable official account for how that happened.
Inconclusive, not really solid evidence of anything, though possibly of interest in a larger criminal investigation as it unfolds and new details emerge.... not incredible.
Quote:
Construction of the new, 52-story WTC 7 was completed two years before the government knew what happened to the first WTC 7. In fact, when the new building was completed in 2006, the spokesman for the government investigation said, “We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” The construction of the new building, without regard for how the first one was destroyed, indicates that building construction professionals in New York City did not believe it could ever happen again.
Not conclusive or even indacative of anything. Developers have been known to ignore safety concerns in the past for ecomnomic reasons, nothing new.... not incredible.
Quote:
Ultimately, building construction codes were not changed as a result of the root causes cited by the National Institute for Standards and Technology for destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. This fact shows that the international building construction community does not believe that the WTC buildings were destroyed as stated in the official account.
Again, economic constraints may explain the reluctance to immediately review building codes or act on newly discovered vulnerabilities, especially if they're deemed to be very unlikely to occur again. Anyway to revise any building codes they would have to have access to the (never released) parameters employed in the NIST computer simulations.... not incredible.
Quote:
AMEC, the company that just finished rebuilding the exact spot where Flight 77 was said to hit, was put in charge of cleanup at the WTC and the Pentagon. The man who ran the company, Peter Janson, was a long-time business associate of Donald Rumsfeld.
Suspicious perhaps, but not conclusive or solidly indacative of anything, though it could possibly become a point of interest as a criminal investigation unfolded and revealed new details.... not incredible.
Quote:
The response of the U.S. Secret Service to the 9/11 attacks suggests foreknowledge of the events in that the agency failed to protect the president from the obvious danger posed by terrorists.
Again, suspicious, but not conclusive or specifically indicative of anything, maybe of interest in a larger criminal investigation as it unfolds and new details emerge.... not incredible.
Quote:
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the FBI of suspected 9/11 insider trading transactions. That evidence was ignored and the suspects were not even questioned by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission.
Again, suspicious but not conclusive or specifically indicative of anything, though likely to be a point of interest in a larger criminal investigation as it unfolds and new details emerge.... not incredible.
Quote:
There are, of course, many more incredible facts about 9/11 that continue to be ignored by authorities and much of the media. Let’s hope that the next major terrorist attack results in legitimate reporting and unified calls for truth before fourteen years have passed.
Maybe, maybe not. Anyway one could keep talking about all that kind of stuff forever if they wanted to I suppose.... I'll stick with the one crucial empirically verifiable fact that literally renders all the rest of the events that day either moot, academic or irrelevant and that's the observed 105 foot 2.25 second officially and independently verified period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of WTC7.... the one incredible fact you at least seem to have intentionally blurred and watered down to make it appear inconclusive by not mentioning gravitational acceleration or the specific intelligence agencies known to have occupied the building at the time. Dirty pool.... the "Fourteen Incredible Facts About 9/11" look to me like some sort of Gatekeeper thing to keep people talking and thinking about all sorts of things that don't add up to anything and keep them from focussing on the one thing that does.
Last edited by IsaacNewton on Fri Aug 21, 2015 10:36 pm; edited 4 times in total
I think Kevin Ryan is one of the good guys - check his story - he really has gone above and beyond the call of duty in exposing the 9/11 myths. I grant you that failing to mentioning freefall as a error in the article. But he has done many important articles and I think these facts were just gleaned from unused post-it notes he had on his wall.
IsaacNewton wrote:
WTC7.... the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency.
....And the Security and Exchange Commission that was looking into Enron and Worldcom and their relationship to certain Texan politicians. Physical evidence of the wrong doing was lost when WTC7 was destroyed.
Some of the people investigating Enron were also killed in the World Trade Centre towers.
Why is the DoD tenant important? Because perhaps the data from the Pentagon had back-up in WTC7? So master and backup data of the $2.3 trillion DoD unaccounted for funds couldn't be found perhaps? The DoD did not have signed off accounts for years after 9/11... (This is a prove-able fact).
Anyway... I do agree that WTC7 freefall is the mathematical proof that 9/11's a lie.
I think Kevin Ryan is one of the good guys - check his story - he really has gone above and beyond the call of duty in exposing the 9/11 myths.
I'm aware of all that, an extraordinary body of research carried out by a clearly intelligent man, which makes it all the more mysterious as to how he could have ended up posting this ridiculous statement on his blog....
KevinRyan wrote:
As the 14th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, it’s important to remind people that we still don’t know what happened that day.
....it's just preposterous.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
I grant you that failing to mentioning freefall as a error in the article. But he has done many important articles and I think these facts were just gleaned from unused post-it notes he had on his wall.
I suppose it could be attributed to that, but when considering his almost encyclopedic level of knowledge on the topic both scientific and political, well.... it would be a bit like Albert Einstein slipping and publishing 1 + 1 = 57.3975. That list and the way it's crafted beginning with the patently absurd statement about still not knowing what happened that day.... I'm telling you, if I were to evaluate that post without benefit of knowing who the author was, it would immediately fall into the Gatekeeper category....
Thirteen of the fourteen so called "Incredible Facts" consist of nothing more than odd details of various suspicious goings on of one sort or another that can't really be used to arrive at any kind of solidly conclusive determination of fact (in the empirical sense of the word) when it comes to getting to the bottom of what actually happened that day or who specifically was involved in the planning and orchestration of the physical destruction of WTC7.... they're all either too vague, too speculative or too subjective on one level or another to really nail down scientifically or criminally.
The enormous significance of the one genuinely "Incredible Fact" in the lot that can actually be used to arrive at a solidly conclusive determination of fact (in the empirical sense of the word) as to what actually happened that day that can also at the same time be used to positively identify literally the only ones who could possibly have done it is first blurred by failing to mention gravitational acceleration, and then it's significance is further watered down by distancing the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency specifically from the whole thing by referring to them instead as nondescript "U.S. Intelligence agencies" that occupied the building before shifting the focus (in the same sentence) away from them entirely by going into some detail about how Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had an interest in some company in the building, throwing in that they were scheduled to talk about terrorism and explosives there on morning of 9/11 for good measure to magnify the implied suspicion....
KevinRyan wrote:
A third skyscraper collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11. This was WTC 7, a 47-story building that the government’s final report says fell into its own footprint due to office fires. The building’s tenants included U.S. intelligence agencies and a company led in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Meetings were scheduled there to discuss terrorism and explosives on the morning of 9/11.
Like I said, the way it's crafted, without benefit of knowing who the author was.... it's a prima facie case of Gatekeeping.
I grant you that failing to mentioning freefall as a error in the article. But he has done many important articles and I think these facts were just gleaned from unused post-it notes he had on his wall.
Well, I'm afraid old Post-It notes won't explain this article he wrote back in 2008 where an even more obvious example of the same thing can be seen. The article, a fairly lengthy point by point very detailed dismantling of the official narrative on a number of issues regarding WTC7 was published in 2008 (about a month after David Chandlers famous dressing down of Shyam Sunder on the issue of free fall)....
In the entire article, the words "free fall" only appear once, and then only in passing as part of a remark having to do with the "scooped out" explanation provided by Shyam Sunder at some point in describing damage to the building purportedly caused by falling debris from the towers....
KevinRyan wrote:
Additionally, it was clear that such extreme, asymmetric damage would have caused an asymmetric collapse, not a straight down free-fall speed collapse as we see in the videos. In the end, NIST gave up on the "scooped out" explanation....
That's it, the one fact that literally explains the whole thing and shines a bright spotlight (really more like a laser) on literally the only ones who could possibly have done it is mentioned only in passing.... one time without any elaboration. I'm sorry, but it just strains credulity that someone so knowledgable and detail oriented who's really trying to get to the bottom of it could possibly fail to see the enormous significance of gravitational acceleration, even back then, and not be interested enough in it to explore it fully with the same scientific rigor he explores the other issues with.
While being mindful of the dreadful media and social media tricks concocted by the establishment, I think we should just try to be nice to people who are "out there", ie named, speaking up and trying to survive. We just have to keep going with the best evidence... (there's lots of supporting evidence).
Back to WTC7 - I agree with quote in the article you linked to... (perhaps we could add to your existing 911forum WTC7 thread to discuss in more detail....)
Quote:
I must say though (inhaling deeply) that in view of the overwhelming simplicity of the governing physical principle involved here (the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body) I'll always remain somewhat perplexed as to why there was never any other input by any of the other people here apparently so well qualified to judge the analysis that really should have quickly and naturally lead to a simple confirmation or denial by consensus of the veracity of the information conveyed by it as one would normally expect in response to such a fundamentally structured high school level empirically verifiable analysis.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:36 am Post subject:
INCONTROVERTIBLE to be released in September
A New Feature Length Documentary
The truth about 9/11 direct from the mouths of those who are the very best placed to know… Police Officers
This September as part of the 14th anniversary of 9/11, Killing Auntie Films plans to screen a new feature length film on 9/11 in London.
British film maker Tony Rooke's 'INCONTROVERTIBLE' is the first crowd-funded project to feature original interviews with police officers, firefighters, and politicians, who ALL voice their grave concerns over the so called official version of events of 14 years ago. Never before have we seen police officers, judges, and even presidential candidates speak so candidly about their doubts and scepticism surrounding the official narrative of 9/11.
'INCONTROVERTIBLE’ is a no-nonsense rebuttal to British Prime Minister David Cameron's ridiculous announcement at the United Nations recently that those who doubt the official 9/11 narrative should be viewed as 'extremists'. Far from it, these are men and women of law enforcement, fire-fighting, military service, and years of loyalty to their Country.'
The film, shot in numerous US cities and many countries around the world, follows the journey of 9/11 victim family member and UK citizen Matt Campbell, whose brother Geoff perished in the North Tower of the World Trade Centre, as he encounters those who gave their lives to law enforcement and civic duty, only to realise the awful reality of just who their superiors are. The film is designed to serve as a clarion call to all in the Police Service, the Fire Departments and to all our military. These are THEIR people, and these are voices they can no longer ignore.
After all this time, at last, the police are waking up. 'INCONTROVERTIBLE' has been 2 years in the making, and is the most intriguing and worrying analysis of just how truly impossible the Government's version of September 11th has become and of how not even those who served to protect us were protected from the grim reality of false flag terrorism in New York City on September 11th 2001.
Narrated by the accomplished British stage and screen actor Michael Culver, 'INCONTROVERTIBLE' is as forthright, as it is terrifying, as it is full of hope.
To gauge interest in the film's premiere, please reply by email to confirm your desire to attend. London screens are expensive and only by knowing the numbers will organisers know the best size to book.
Organisers are planning for a nominal door charge of £5 for this special viewing of 'INCONTROVERTIBLE' to help cover the venue costs, and as seating is limited, if you wish to attend then please send your email to killingauntiefilms@hotmail.com to confirm how many seats are required and to get names on the door.
It is crucial this information is given to our law enforcement, and the views in this film ARE by law enforcers. DVD's of the film will be on sale after the screening to help this information get circulated to those who most need to see it, and there will also be a Q&A session with Matt Campbell, Michael Culver, and Tony Rooke after the film.
While being mindful of the dreadful media and social media tricks concocted by the establishment....
Right, I know all about all the "dreadful media and social media tricks concocted by the establishment" thing.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
I think we should just try to be nice to people who are "out there", ie named, speaking up and trying to survive.
Not if they're deliberately minimizing the significance of important information and artificially inflating the significance of other information to mislead and distract.... no need to be nice to them.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
We just have to keep going with the best evidence...
Agreed, and the best evidence of all that can explain WTC7 (and by extension the rest of the events that day), as conclusively revealed by my empirically verifiable analysis along with the observations of countless other independent researchers, is that the officially and independently verified 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitaional acceleration that the upper part of WTC7 verifiably underwent as it decended symmetrically as a single unit really is, beyond any reasonable doubt, solid irrefutable evidence that the destruction of WTC7 was the result of energetic materials having been physically transported into the building by the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency on the orders of General Richard Myers and George Tenet.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
Back to WTC7 - I agree with quote in the article you linked to... (perhaps we could add to your existing 911forum WTC7 thread to discuss in more detail....)
Aemilius wrote:
I must say though (inhaling deeply) that in view of the overwhelming simplicity of the governing physical principle involved here (the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body) I'll always remain somewhat perplexed as to why there was never any other input by any of the other people here apparently so well qualified to judge the analysis that really should have quickly and naturally lead to a simple confirmation or denial by consensus of the veracity of the information conveyed by it as one would normally expect in response to such a fundamentally structured high school level empirically verifiable analysis.
That quote isn't from the article I linked to, it's from the link in my Signature and it's part of my closing remark made over at the Cambridge University sponsored science forum TheNakedScientists (my screen name there is Aemilius) at the conclusion of the thread "What is Free Fall" where the analysis I carried out was originally formulated. The article I linked to is from the DigWithin blog of Kevin Ryan. So when you say....
scienceplease 2 wrote:
I agree with quote in the article you linked to... (perhaps we could add to your existing 911forum WTC7 thread to discuss in more detail....)
....it's a bit confusing, and you don't say exactly what it is in the out of context last paragraph of the thread "What is Free Fall?" your quoting from that you agree with or why. As far as adding any of this to the existing 911forum WTC7 thread goes, the analysis is complete (the most current updated version is linked to in my Signature below) and has arrived at a conclusive determination, so in that sense there's nothing to add or discuss. According to the scientific method there are really only four possible responses to a completed prima facie empirically verifiable analysis that's arrived at a conclusive determination....
....concur by simply recognizing the prima facie (correct at first sight) analysis and confirm it's correct.
....break the analysis by pointing out some error and then following through by copying and pasting one of the animations and appropriate acompanying desciptive text and saying, for example...."This animation and the accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." followed by some cogently elucidated empirically founded explanation of the percieved error showing the analysis (and by extension the conclusion it arrives at) to be incorect.
....break the analysis by providing a more plausible empirically verifiable explanation that supercedes the prima facie empirically verfiable explanation already provided (and by extension the conclusion it arrives at) showing it to be incorrect.
....break the analysis by showing how the introduction of additional empirical evidence (existing or logically conjectured) not included in the analysis would tend to negatively impact the veracity of the information it conveys (and by extension the conclusion it arrives at) showing it to be incorrect.
So that's it.... adding a discussion about the Gatekeeping* activities of Kevin Ryan to it would not contribute any useful data (in the empirical sense of the word) that could be stated in the above described manner, so from the vantage point of the scientific method, it would just be seen as a vacuous non sequitur regardless of outcome.
.
Not if they're deliberately minimizing the significance of important information and artificially inflating the significance of other information to mislead and distract.... no need to be nice to them.
As a scientist I cannot determine whether Ryan was being "deliberate".
scienceplease 2 wrote:
Back to WTC7 - I agree with quote in the article you linked to... (perhaps we could add to your existing 911forum WTC7 thread to discuss in more detail....)
Aemilius wrote:
I must say though (inhaling deeply) that in view of the overwhelming simplicity of the governing physical principle involved here (the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body) I'll always remain somewhat perplexed as to why there was never any other input by any of the other people here apparently so well qualified to judge the analysis that really should have quickly and naturally lead to a simple confirmation or denial by consensus of the veracity of the information conveyed by it as one would normally expect in response to such a fundamentally structured high school level empirically verifiable analysis.
Yes, I meant the link in your signature...
I was trying to get at the context of the discussion, and yes, you've supplied some of the information: Cambridge University sponsored science forum TheNakedScientists, and confirming (as if there was any doubt) that your handle there was Aemilius. There was indication that you had discussions outside of the thread with forum moderators or maybe other threads. Is this the only 9/11 thread on the forum? The "naked chemist"(?) stated some random reason why freefall was not a valid conclusion because video cameras can't be trusted? I could not understand his reasoning. It seemed truly bonkers. He seemed like a gatekeeper to me cf Kevin Ryan, 9/11 whistleblower.
As I said, this might be better on another thread.
If this thread is solely about Ryan's 14 incredible facts, then yes, the one incredible fact that he missed that makes all others insignificant is WTC7 freefall. Full stop.
Understood, thanks for the clarification.... sorry if I seemed a bit short.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
There was indication that you had discussions outside of the thread with forum moderators or maybe other threads.
No actual discussion, that was just one of the listed reasons why I abandoned the thread there....
Aemilius wrote:
"CliffordK has explained to me (privately) that he and the other moderators decided that arguments about whether or not two jet airplanes caused the building to collapse seemed best suited to the "That CAN'T be true" subforum, though no airplane struck the building (even the NIST says airplanes had nothing to do with it) and airplanes are mentioned nowhere in the thread as having had anything to do with it either.... extremely curious!
....though obviously I later returned to post the completed Analysis after ruminating on it all for several months.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
Is this the only 9/11 thread on the forum?
There have been others, like these for instance....
....all locked. Not sure why they didn't lock mine (though CliffordK did mention in the same Private Message referred to above they'd discussed it).
scienceplease 2 wrote:
The "naked chemist"(?) stated some random reason why freefall was not a valid conclusion because video cameras can't be trusted? I could not understand his reasoning. It seemed truly bonkers.
You mean Bored chemist? Hah! That was incredibly odd the way he just kept hammering away at that issue and demanding I explain it rather than just asking Dr. Calverd (a bona fide veteran Research Physicist), and when Dr. Calverd finally spoke up and settled the matter.... this Bored chemist just disappeared. There are a couple of other odd aspects to the thread too, like the way none of the other Members, Moderators or any of TheNakedScientists Podcast Staff or even Christopher Smith, a Cambridge University PhD neuroscientist and the Administrator and creator of the forum (who I happen to know has viewed the thread) have ever chimed in over the entire course of the two month long discussion, or anytime time since (almost a year now), to voice any support for or concurrence with either of our positions. Another thing I noticed is that, to date, with over forty thousand views in addition to all the various forums I've mentioned it in, one would imagine that at least one person (credentialed or not) would have joined the forum specifically to comment one way or the other. I know I've done that many times myself in a variety of forums, and not just to comment on science topics either but other topics as well. It just boggles the mind that an eighth grade dropout (me) could actually approach Cambridge Universty with such a fundamental question concerning Newtons Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body and be met with complete silence in response. That's Cambridge University, where Isaac Newton himself once held the vaunted Lucasian Chair. I have now lost all respect for Cambridge University.... but not for Isaac Newton.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
He seemed like a gatekeeper to me cf Kevin Ryan, 9/11 whistleblower.
I gave what you said there some thought, and I think I would characterize Bored chemist more as a shill whose main objective was simply to disrupt the thread and prevent it from progressing to conclusion.... Gatekeepers, from what I understand, employ a more subtle, sophisticated strategy of deception involving artful distraction and misdirection to mislead by focussing on and inflating the significance of various unimportant details while at the same time minimizing or just ignoring all together the significance of other more important details that actually do go somewhere investigationally, for example, the way Kevin Ryan at least appears to play up subjective unrelated odd details that don't go anywhere investigationally as "Incredible" while at the same time completely omitting other details of enormous importance and significance, as he appears to have done in his recent list of "Fourteen Incredible Facts About 9/11" and the older article he wrote on WTC7 in 2008 (the article on his blog I linked to earlier).... gravitational acceleration. Just my take all this, not proof.... but I do trust my intuition.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
As I said, this might be better on another thread.
I'm actually thinking of gong over there (to his blog) and challenging him on this issue. I wonder how he'd respond. Anyway I don't think we've strayed to far afield with this here, and I don't see any complaints.... I think we could just hang out here for a while. Plus, if I do post on his blog, I can report his response here where it belongs in relation to the stated topic.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
If this thread is solely about Ryan's 14 incredible facts, then yes, the one incredible fact that he missed that makes all others insignificant is WTC7 freefall. Full stop.
I'll go out on a limb here and venture that when it comes to 9/11, WTC7 means "Full Stop" not only when it comes to Kevin Ryans preposterous list, but all the myriad details being discussed (substantiated or not) that continue endlessly swirling around on the internet as well since analysis of any one of them, regardless of outcome, doesn't clearly lead to any conclusive determination fact that could actually result in an arrest warrant being issued for anyone, like the phone calls from the planes, all the speculation about the placement and composition of the energetic materials required, what Larry Silverstein said, whether the Israelis were dancing, whether George Bush knew, the molten steel and all the rest.... whereas if I could get my Analysis before a Grand Jury, General Richard Meyers and George Tenet would be arrested the very same day. It's a prima facie (essentially true at first sight) open and shut case that Analysis.... and no one has ever shown it to be otherwise. I'm not saying necessarily that all those details I see swirling around the internet are unimportant or should be entirely disregarded, because in the course of a genuine criminal investigation I'm fairly certain many of them would become either points of interest or, like the "Swiss Cheese" steel from WTC7 or the molten steel clearly seen pouring from one of the Towers, actual evidentiary exhibits as criminal proceedings unfolded. To start that process, to start the dominoes falling, one must first be toppled.... the arrest of General Richard Meyers and George Tenet (along with their closest aides at the time) are that first dominoe that must be toppled.
Do you prefer to be called IssacNewton, Issac, Mr Newton, Professor Newton, Prof?
IsaacNewton wrote:
It just boggles the mind that an eighth grade dropout (me) could actually approach Cambridge Universty with such a fundamental question concerning Newtons Third Law as applied to a falling body and be met with complete silence in response. That's Cambridge University, where Isaac Newton himself once held the vaunted Lucasian Chair. I have now lost all respect for Cambridge University.... but not for Isaac Newton.
This Non-acceptance due to Cognitive Dissonance... Their core belief system would implode if they really accepted the truth. People who generally believe there are Right all the time generally suffer this syndrome more than most.
IsaacNewton wrote:
Kevin Ryan... I'm actually thinking of gong over there (to his blog) and challenging him on this issue.
Please do. I've every expectation he would accept your points.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
WTC7 freefall.... Full stop.
IsaacNewton wrote:
I'll go out on a limb here and venture that when it comes to 9/11, WTC7 means "Full Stop" not only when it comes to Kevin Ryans preposterous list, but all the myriad details being discussed (substantiated or not) that continue endlessly swirling around on the internet...
I agree. Much like the http://rememberbuilding7.org/ campaign, I believe the only thing for people to appreciate on 9/11 is WTC7, (most people haven't even heard of it) and that it fell at freefall (and the NIST explanation for its collapse is patently and provable by simple mathematics, a lie. Full stop.
IsaacNewton 2 wrote:
By the way, you mentioned you're a scientist.... What branch?
Don't get your hopes up too much: I have a BSc in an unrelated subject and now I work as an Information Technology consultant.
Do you prefer to be called IssacNewton, Issac, Mr Newton, Professor Newton, Prof?
Hah! Well, Emile is my real name if you like, but anything will do, Aemilius, Tesibius, IsaacNewton, Zamolxis, WOPR, TheAccidentalDruid.... even SnydleyWhiplash!
IsaacNewton wrote:
It just boggles the mind that an eighth grade dropout (me) could actually approach Cambridge Universty with such a fundamental question concerning Newtons Third Law as applied to a falling body and be met with complete silence in response. That's Cambridge University, where Isaac Newton himself once held the vaunted Lucasian Chair. I have now lost all respect for Cambridge University.... but not for Isaac Newton.
scienceplease wrote:
This Non-acceptance due to Cognitive Dissonance... Their core belief system would implode if they really accepted the truth. People who generally believe there are Right all the time generally suffer this syndrome more than most.
I could believe that might account for some of it, but it can't begin to account for all of it. No amount of cognitive dissonance could explain the ubiquitous ongoing silence on the issue for almost fifteen years now, and not just in physics either, but the larger academic community as a whole. In other words.... it's not plausible that so many scientists and academics en masse could be made to feel so uncomfortable by a scientific conclusion, no matter what it had to do with, that they would all simply refuse to discuss the matter under any circumstances, like Dr. Christopher Smith, PhD (neuroscience), of Cambridge University, or the more extreme case of Dr. Alan Calverd, PhD (physicist), who, rather than refusing to discuss it, actually goes so far as to actively argue against Newtons Third Law in open debate with an eighth grade dropout.... I'm thinking some other more powerful forces must be at play.
scienceplease wrote:
IsaacNewton wrote:
Kevin Ryan... I'm actually thinking of gong over there (to his blog) and challenging him on this issue (in a friendly and civil way of course).
Please do. I've every expectation he would accept your points.
Then it's decided, I'll do that. Maybe he'll respond as you expect and I'll be pleasantly surprised and end up apologizing for being so hard on him here. It should be interesting to see the result either way. Just curious though.... Are you (or anyone else here) aware of him focussing extensively on this issue, the gravitational acceleration of WTC7, in any of his writings?
IsaacNewton wrote:
I'll go out on a limb here and venture that when it comes to 9/11, WTC7 means "Full Stop" not only when it comes to Kevin Ryans preposterous list, but all the myriad details being discussed (substantiated or not) that continue endlessly swirling around on the internet...
scienceplease wrote:
I agree. Much like the http://rememberbuilding7.org/ campaign, I believe the only thing for people to appreciate on 9/11 is WTC7, (most people haven't even heard of it) and that it fell at freefall (and the NIST explanation for its collapse is patently and provable by simple mathematics, a lie. Full stop.
Well put.... interestingly I notice RememberingBuilding7 doesn't mention free fall either.
IsaacNewton wrote:
By the way, you mentioned you're a scientist.... What branch?
scienceplease wrote:
Don't get your hopes up too much: I have a BSc in an unrelated subject....
A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.
A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.
Not exactly what I'd call focussing extensively on the issue, more than nothing.... but not much.
IsaacNewton wrote:
By the way, you mentioned you're a scientist.... What branch?
scienceplease wrote:
Don't get your hopes up too much: I have a BSc in an unrelated subject....
A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.
Not exactly what I'd call focussing extensively on the issue, more than nothing.... but not much.
Right... but in Kevin Ryan's lectures he concentrates on what he knows: ie the Underwriter Labs and the steel and chemistry rather than physics.
Kevin Ryan... I'm actually thinking of gong over there (to his blog) and challenging him on this issue (in a friendly and civil way of course).
Please do. I've every expectation he would accept your points.
Well, it looks like we'll both be very disappointed then (but at least I don't have to apologize). My first comment on the DigWithin blog of Kevin Ryan appeared, stayed up for about two hours, then disappeared. Maybe he just accidentally hit the delete button while he was shuffling through all those old Post-It notes.... or maybe he's a Gatekeeper.
IsaacNewton wrote:
By the way, you mentioned you're a scientist.... What branch?
scienceplease wrote:
Don't get your hopes up too much: I have a BSc in an unrelated subject....
IsaacNewton wrote:
What would that be?
scienceplease wrote:
Sorry, I try not to give out too much personal information on a public blog.
That's an unusual response, it's not like I asked where you live or work. Your response is no different than, say, an anonymous forum poster saying they're an artist, but then in response to someone asking what medium (oils, watercolor, sculpture, etc.) replying that it's to personal a question to answer. Doesn't make any sense. Every academic or artist I've ever known loves nothing more than to talk about their work, but that's fine, we'll just leave it at that.....
I don't know what you said but Ryan's latest blog clearly mentions freefall
Quote:
There was one important exception to NIST’s ignoring of public comments. After a physics teacher’s well-publicized comments, NIST was forced to admit that WTC 7 was in free-fall for a vertical distance equivalent to at least eight stories of the building. Structural engineers have since noted that many hundreds of high-strength steel bolts and steel welds would have had to vanish instantaneously for an 8-story section of the building to fall without any resistance.
I'm going to cease and desist from this thread now except to say that it is good thing to keep conversations on topic, not personal, treat people with respect and to protect each other's privacy.
"As the 14th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, it's important to remind people that we still don't know what happened that day" - Kevin Ryan
Preposterous. When it comes to WTC7, though the possible composition and placement of the energetic materials employed may be endlessly debated, the fact (as conclusively revealed by empirical analysis) that they were indeed composed and placed may not, and the list of tenants positively identifies literally the only ones who could possibly have carried out a covert domestic operation of that magnitude in that (at the time highly secured) building, namely, the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, headed at the time by General Richard Meyers and George Tenet respectively. No one in the Department of Defense could have carried it out without the Central Intelligence Agency being aware of it, and no one in the Central Intelligence Agency could have carried it out without the Department of Defense being aware of it.... I know (in the empirical sense of the word) that WTC7 was destroyed by energetic materials deliberately placed in the building, and I know (by the list of tenants and the high security surrounding the building at the time and for many years prior) that the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency (which would logically include General Richard Meyers, George Tenet and their closest aides at the time) actively participated in planning and orchestrating the physical destruction of the building, and regardless of any other conclusions reached about the destruction of the Towers, the Pentagon or Shanksville, the empirically established fact that WTC7 was brought down by the intentional use of energetic materials is alone enough to justify the immediate arrest of General Richard Meyers and George Tenet (along with all of their closest aides at the time). The fact is, Mr. Ryan, we do know what happened that day beyond any reasonable doubt....
Obviously the comment was seen as fit to post initially, but then, a short time later apparently, something changed that caused it to be seen as unfit to post, and it was just quietly removed without even a cursory explanation. Without some sort of explanation, in combination with other irregularities already mentioned.... Gatekeeping.
scienceplease wrote:
....but Ryan's latest blog clearly mentions freefall
KevinRyan wrote:
There was one important exception to NIST’s ignoring of public comments. After a physics teacher’s well-publicized comments, NIST was forced to admit that WTC 7 was in free-fall for a vertical distance equivalent to at least eight stories of the building. Structural engineers have since noted that many hundreds of high-strength steel bolts and steel welds would have had to vanish instantaneously for an 8-story section of the building to fall without any resistance.
Right, and aside from going on with some sort of history lesson and continuing to rail against the NIST over various issues.... that's all he does. What he doesn't do is mention anything about who specifically the tenants were, or how those tenants were provably the only ones who had access to the building, or how those tenants were provably the only ones in the building that had ready access to the quantity and quality of energetic materials required, or how literally no one else on the planet could have possibly penetrated or otherwise breached the high security surrounding the building, and how that positively rules out any other government, any terrorist group or any other individuals or organizations on the planet having done it. That the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency (logically including General Richard Meyers, George Tenet and their closest aides at the time) are literally the only ones on the planet who could have planned, orchestrated and carried out the physical destruction of the building (WTC7) is not a connection one needs to be Sherlock Holmes to make and there's absolutely no excuse for not making it if one is genuinely seeking the truth.... I'm genuinely seeking the truth, and my irrefutable Analysis (signature below) concretely makes that connection.
scienceplease wrote:
....it is good thing to keep conversations on topic not personal, treat people with respect and to protect each other's privacy.
Yeah well I've stayed on topic and so have you, and I don't see any blatant examples of anyone being disrespectful either. But let me get this straight.... you don't mind revealing current personal information that you're an "Information Technology consultant", but if I ask about your past academic experience in relation to your claim of being a scientist, even something as general as what branch of science it is you're concerned with that would tend to support the claim, I'm actually invading your privacy somehow by questioning your claim, whereupon you announce you're going to "cease and desist from this thread" (love the "cease and desist" bit), admonishing me on the way out that everyone should stay on topic, be respectful and protect each others privacy.
Based on our exchange I'll just say I don't believe you're a scientist at all. But if by some chance you actually are a scientist and you don't wish to discuss your credentials in a public forum because you feel for whatever reason they fall into the category of personal information.... it is you who shouldn't have mentioned them, not me who shouldn't have questioned them. Just expecting people to believe you're a scientist because you say so doesn't wash and trying to imply somehow that anyone who questions your credentials in response to your mentioning them is going off topic, being disrespectful or invading your privacy just looks like a smoke screen.
scienceplease wrote:
I'm going to cease and desist from this thread now....
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 480 Location: the beano
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:48 am Post subject:
"The official story of the failed air defenses on 9/11 was changed several times and, in the end, paradoxically exonerated the military by saying that the military had lied many times about its response. The man who was behind several of the changing accounts was a specialist in political warfare (i.e. propaganda). "
Does anyone know who was the man behind several of the changes in the accounts? wish Kevin had named him!
WTC7 - even someone who has studied physics at o level or a level knows that the official account contradicts the laws of physics. _________________ "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 7:33 pm Post subject:
scienceplease 2 wrote:
keep conversations on topic, not personal
Indeed,
Trying to get anonymous contributors to reveal personal details quite obviously a no, no.
The discussion stands or falls on evidence presented -
As we know qualifications and bona fides are precious little proof of someone's ability and absolutely none of their integrity.
I don't know what you said but Ryan's latest blog clearly mentions freefall
Quote:
There was one important exception to NIST’s ignoring of public comments. After a physics teacher’s well-publicized comments, NIST was forced to admit that WTC 7 was in free-fall for a vertical distance equivalent to at least eight stories of the building. Structural engineers have since noted that many hundreds of high-strength steel bolts and steel welds would have had to vanish instantaneously for an 8-story section of the building to fall without any resistance.
I'm going to cease and desist from this thread now except to say that it is good thing to keep conversations on topic, not personal, treat people with respect and to protect each other's privacy.
Trying to get anonymous contributors to reveal personal details quite obviously a no, no.
No TonyGosling. Don't know what you're up to there but I don't think I like you trying to paint me into that corner.... at all. I have no qualms respecting the anonymity of other members and you've shown absolutely nothing to support your insinuation of impropriety on my part using quotes or anything else.... I challenge you to do that. Also, if you're actually suggesting (as you at least appear to be) that members who wish to remain anonymous can just proceed to make any number of claims they like without backing them up or even casually supporting them with even the most general elaboration, and that I or anyone else who dares to ask for any general additional supporting information regarding them once they've been freely mentioned are somehow acting inappropriately.... you are clearly out of your mind.
All I did was to ask for a little elaboration on personal details scienceplease 2 had already freely provided, a perfectly normal response in any conversation. Read the thread.... it was scienceplease 2 who freely volunteered the information about being a scientist, about being an information technology consultant and about holding of a Bachelor of Science degree. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks and I'm not backing down.... if anyone makes any claim of any sort (myself included) they must be prepared to back it up or otherwise support it or risk appearing a fool. That's the standard I'm routinely held to and it's the standard I hold others to.
TonyGosling wrote:
The discussion stands or falls on evidence presented -
As we know qualifications and bona fides are precious little proof of someone's ability and absolutely none of their integrity.
Irrelevant. What we know is that the same standard mentioned above applies no matter what across the board.... one must be prepared to back up any claim made in a factually oriented forum discusion or debate.... if it's to carry any weight that is. I can't believe I'm actually having to explain that to anyone..
I'm not anonymous.... my name's Emile Cole and I live in Seattle.
TonyGosling wrote:
....requiring other anonymous posters to reveal personal information....
How is it you see asking what branch of science an anonymous poster claims to be concerned with as being personal in nature? It doesn't make any sense.
TonyGosling wrote:
....is further to being Kafkaesque & irrelevant it sends the topic away from useful discussion of the facts down a rabbit hole.
Hah! So if an anonymous poster says "I'm a scientist" and I respond by saying "What kind?" it's Kafkaesque.... that's just riotously funny!
TonyGosling wrote:
So lets see, Sir Issac Sir, if you can return to the matter in hand, the murder of 3000+ people & ensuing smashing of international law with its millions of innocent dead and tens of millions displaced.
No. The topic is not the murder of 3000+ people & ensuing smashing of international law with its millions of innocent dead and tens of millions displaced.... it's the list of Fourteen Incredible Facts About 9/11 as written recently by Kevin Ryan and all or most of my posts make reference to either the author, one of the facts listed having to do with WTC7 I chose to focus on, or all of the facts on the list. You're not using quotes to make your point or show where I'm doing anything like what you're suggesting. Now you're saying I've strayed from the topic when all or most of my posts clearly make direct reference to it. You haven't made even one on topic post that directly addresses the topic, the author or anything discussed so far, only a SpamBomb and this manufactured nonsense.... What's the deal man? _________________ . . World Trade Center building 7 - A complete Prima Facie Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination . .
As the 14th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, it’s important to remind people that we still don’t know what happened that day. What is known about 9/11 is that there are many incredible facts that continue to be ignored by the government and the mainstream media. Here are fourteen.
An outline of what was to become the 9/11 Commission Report was produced before the investigation began. The outline was kept secret from the Commission’s staff and appears to have determined the outcome of the investigation.
The 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three (63) times in its Report that it could find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes.
One person, Shayna Steiger, issued 12 visas to the alleged hijackers in Saudi Arabia. Steiger issued some of the visas without interviewing the applicants and fought with another employee at the embassy who tried to prevent her lax approach.
Before 9/11, the nation’s leading counter-terrorism expert repeatedly notified his friends in the United Arab Emirates of top-secret U.S. plans to capture Osama bin Laden. These treasonous leaks prevented Bin Laden’s capture on at least two separate occasions.
Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught stealing documents from the National Archives that had been requested by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission had previously been denied access to the documents but the White House reluctantly agreed to turn them over just as Berger was trying to steal them..
The official story of the failed air defenses on 9/11 was changed several times and, in the end, paradoxically exonerated the military by saying that the military had lied many times about its response. The man who was behind several of the changing accounts was a specialist in political warfare (i.e. propaganda).
Military exercises being conducted on the day of 9/11 mimicked the attacks as they were occurring and obstructed the response to the attacks. NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart sponsored those exercises, failed to do his job that day, and later lied to Congress about it (if the 9/11 Commission account is true).
A third skyscraper collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11. This was WTC 7, a 47-story building that the government’s final report says fell into its own footprint due to office fires. The building’s tenants included U.S. intelligence agencies and a company led in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Meetings were scheduled there to discuss terrorism and explosives on the morning of 9/11.
News agencies, including BBC and CNN, announced the destruction of WTC 7 long before it happened. One BBC reporter announced the collapse while viewers could see the still-standing building right behind her in the video. Years later, after claiming that it had lost the tapes and then found them again, BBC’s answer to this astonishing report was that everything was just “confusing and chaotic” that day. Of course, one problem with this is that the news agencies predicted the exact building, of the many damaged in the area, that would collapse. Another big problem is that no one could have possibly predicted the collapse of WTC 7 given the unprecedented and unbelievable official account for how that happened.
Construction of the new, 52-story WTC 7 was completed two years before the government knew what happened to the first WTC 7. In fact, when the new building was completed in 2006, the spokesman for the government investigation said, “We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” The construction of the new building, without regard for how the first one was destroyed, indicates that building construction professionals in New York City did not believe it could ever happen again.
Ultimately, building construction codes were not changed as a result of the root causes cited by the National Institute for Standards and Technology for destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. This fact shows that the international building construction community does not believe that the WTC buildings were destroyed as stated in the official account.
AMEC, the company that just finished rebuilding the exact spot where Flight 77 was said to hit, was put in charge of cleanup at the WTC and the Pentagon. The man who ran the company, Peter Janson, was a long-time business associate of Donald Rumsfeld.
The response of the U.S. Secret Service to the 9/11 attacks suggests foreknowledge of the events in that the agency failed to protect the president from the obvious danger posed by terrorists.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the FBI of suspected 9/11 insider trading transactions. That evidence was ignored and the suspects were not even questioned by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission.
There are, of course, many more incredible facts about 9/11 that continue to be ignored by authorities and much of the media. Let’s hope that the next major terrorist attack results in legitimate reporting and unified calls for truth before fourteen years have passed.
On Monday 6, August, 2001, at 17:50, [German] Ambassador Ischinger personally notified the President of the United States that information developed by the Bundesamt fur Verfassungsschutz [German domestic secret service] as well as the BND [Bundesnachrichtendienst, German foreign secret service] indicated that an attack by a radical Arab group partially based in Germany was to occur on 10-11 September, 2001. The President was at that time in residence at his farm in Texas. Our [the German's] Ambassador was acting in direct response to instructions from Foreign Minister Fischer.
This information was developed from official surveillance of Arab extremist groups operating in the Federal Republic as well as from intercepted communications between the Embassy of Israel and the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Tel Aviv concerning this matter.
The information was “gratefully received” by the US President who stated at the time that he was also aware of the same pending assaults.
Subsequent to these attacks, the office of the US President, through the US Department of State, made an urgent request to the government of the Federal Republic of Germany that no reference whatsoever should be made to the official warnings given by Ambassador Ischinger.
In order to clarify the background of this matter, this Gesamtubersicht [overall survey] of the events leading to the assault was prepared, basing on extracts of reports from our [BND's] foreign stations. Overall, it is evident that the American authorities were aware of the pending attacks. Why they did nothing, is explained in the following.
Background: General Overview
Because of the Bush family’s involvement in oil (Zapata Oil Company), many important and wealthy individuals and corporations with oil interests financially supported the Bush political career. Today, the Bush administration is therefore strongly influenced by major American business groups.
The candidate for American Vice President, Richard “Dick” Cheney, had been the Chief Director of the Halliburton Company. This company, based in Dallas, Texas, where Bush was Governor, is the largest oil service company in the world.
Between 1991 and 1997, such important American oil companies as Texaco, Unocal, Shell, BP Amoco, Chevron and Exxon-Mobil became involved with the former Soviet state of Kazakhstan who holds enormous oil reserves. The government of Kazakhstan was eventually paid over $3 billions of corporate money to allow these companies to secure oil rights. At the same time, these companies agreed further to give the sums of 35 billion US Dollar in investments in plant and equipment to the Kazakhstan projects. A confidential project report of said US firms announced that the gas and oil reserves in Kazakhstan would amount to 4 trillion US Dollar.
The United States is not self-sufficient in oil and 50% of their supply is imported from various foreign sources. Some 80% of oil imported to the US comes from OPEC-Countries, the Arabian oil cartel. Because of the unconditional support by American political leaders of the state of Israel, these Arab governments have a very strained relationship with the USA.
A further small percentage of oil imported to the US comes from Venezuela. Just recently, the US government has been attempting to overthrow the government of Chavez with the help of the CIA and replace it with a government “more sympathetic to American oil needs.”
A position paper prepared by the office of the later-Vice President Cheney states that the Kazakhstan oil reserves would be “more than sufficient to supply US needs for at least a decade” and would further “reduce American dependence on OPEC.”
Unocal Oil Company signed an agreement with the reigning Taliban forces as well as their opponents, the Northern Alliance, in order to permit an oil pipeline to be built through Afghanistan direct through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. by this, the exorbitant rates charged by the Russian to use their pipelines would be avoided. Unocal then opened official offices in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to facilitate the construction of this oil pipeline.
In December of 1997, official Taliban representatives were in the United States to attend a conference at Unocal headquarters in Texas to discuss the Afghanistan pipeline. These talks failed because the Taliban made what Unocal felt were excessive financial demands.
In 1998, internal strife in Afghanistan and inherent instability in Pakistan reached such levels as to render the pipeline project impossible to execute. In the same year, the Houston, Texas based firm of Enron suggested instead to build a $3 billion oil pipeline parallel to the Russian pipelines, running westwards rather than taking the shorter but more problematic route south.
In a secret memorandum by Cheney, it is stated that the Unocal company was prepared to finance the southern route. According to this, this project would take five years to complete and its annual revenues from the successful completion of this pipeline would approximate $2 billions. however, and this had been the subject of a number of secret American reports, the only thing standing in the way of the construction of the pipeline was the basic opposition of the Afghanistan government and its political supporters.
On May 8, 2001, the US Department of State, in the name of Secretary of State Powell, gave 43 million US Dollars to the Taliban in order to facilitate their cooperation in the pipeline project.
On June 10, 2001, the BND warned the CIA office in the US Embassy to the Federal Republic [of Germany] that certain Arab terrorists were planning to seize American commercial aircraft for use as weapons of destruction against significant American symbols. This was considered a general warning only. The Federal Republic’s warning of August 6, however, was specific as to date, time and places of the attacks.
On July 11, 2001, in Berlin, US officials: Thomas Simmons, a former American Ambassador to Pakistan, Lee Coldren, State Department expert on Asian matters, and Karl Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary of State for Asian matter met with Russian and Pakistani intelligence officers. At this meeting, which was under surveillance, it was stated by the Americans that the United States planned to launch military strikes against Afghanistan in October of that year. The purpose of these strikes was to topple the Afghanistan government and the Taliban in order to replace it with a government “more sensitive to the needs of American oil interests.”
In mid-August 2001, President of the Russian Federation Putin ordered that the American authorities be warned of pending attacks on government buildings inside the United States. This warning was conveyed to the US Ambassador in Moscow and via the Russian Ambassadors office directly to the US President.......'
Large chunk of dynamite to fuel the 9/11 Truth Movement on the 14th anniversary, if it can be authenticated; seems to ring true to me. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
'didn’t know my local bartender was a 9/11 Truther. Boyishly handsome with dirty blond hair and wearing his T-shirt inside out, he appeared to be eavesdropping on me at a Brooklyn tavern last week as I told a friend that I was working on a piece about “Truthers” -- Americans who believe the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania were staged or executed not by terrorists but by the American government.
“Inside job,” the bartender piped up, without making eye contact. I asked him if he was just making fun or if he was truly a believer himself.
“Yeah, man, I’m a believer," he said, pouring me a drink.
“Yeah, man, I’m a believer."
Fourteen years after 9/11, Truthers, as they’ve been pejoratively labeled since 2001, have not gone away. Their conspiracy theories can be traced back to the first months after the attack, multiplying over the Internet through message boards, articles and, eventually, homemade documentaries such as the low-budget cult hit “Loose Change,” which racked up 10 million views and topped Google Video in 2006, an outstanding feat in the pre-YouTube era. Organizations like 911truth.org and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth cropped up, bringing together like-minded skeptics of the official narrative that 19 Islamic extremists hijacked four commercial airplanes and carried out the most devastating terrorist attack in U.S. history.
There are even conferences dedicated to discussing a broader strategy to push the movement’s narrative into the mainstream.
Not that Trutherism has been confined to the bowels of the Internet: Celebrities from Mark Ruffalo to Rosie O’Donnell to America’s own TV president, Martin Sheen demand answers about “what really happened.” Activists staged multiple “Bush Did It” rallies in 2002. Last year, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth coordinated with the “Rethink 9/11” campaign to score a huge billboard in Times Square questioning the physics of WTC 7’s collapse. Just this week, staffers from the New York Times complained that the building across from them had been draped in Truther propaganda.
And year after year, polls find that a percentage of Americans across the country suspect that the U.S. government has covered up its own role in the attacks.
In 2004, half of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens polled by Zogby said that some in the government "knew in advance that attacks were planned” and purposefully let them happen. In 2006, Zogby found that 42 percent of Americans nationally believed the U.S. “concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks,” and that “there has been a cover-up.” In 2013, Public Policy Polling reported a much lower figure of 11 percent -- still more than people who said they believed in other theories such as chemtrails, or that the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked.
Even taking the lower estimate, that still suggests there are millions of people in the U.S. who believe the official story of 9/11 is a false flag, and that the real truth has been covered up. That’s not a fringe group. It’s possible that you know a friend who’s a Truther. Or a dentist. Or a bartender. Maybe they just haven’t told you.............'
Great article! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
This is a newly-released video about a 9/11 conference that actually took place five years ago in Canada. No fingers of blame are pointed–no one outs the Israeli Mossad. But the mountain of evidence presented–both forensic as well as eyewitness testimony–leads one to the rather inescapable conclusion that the official 9/11 Commission Report was/is a complete deception from start to finish. A useful video for anyone who may still harbor doubts about what took place that day and what caused the buildings to fall. According to one of the conference witnesses, the 9/11 Commission refused to even consider the possibility of controlled demolition, and, perhaps most damning of all, refused even to look at the evidence of such.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
