W. Niederhut

Chris, FYI. Prouty worked with Lansdale for years, as a military liaison to the CIA. (The CIA had to rely on the military for their special ops. They had no Air Force or Navy of their own, etc.) Prouty said that Lansdale was a "chameleon" -- very adept at manipulating people's impressions of who he was and what he was doing for Allen Dulles.

So, Griffith, the non-scientist, posts some of the ubiquitous government disinformation about the WTC7 demolition, while telling us that the scientific facts about the explosive WTC7 demolition is actually pseudo-science. 2+2=5. Incidentally, Popular Mechanics has been identified as a major source of government disinformation about the explosive WTC demolitions. One of their writers is a Bush/Cheney/PNAC guy-- a cousin of Michael Cherthoff, if I recall correctly.

It was Prouty, Ron. And Prouty also said that the Currey biography of Lansdale was bunk -- a CIA propaganda piece.

Geez... What incredible bunk. It's a shame that Pat Speer has joined disinformation-ist Michael Griffith in mucking up the scientific facts about the explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. In essence, Griffith continues to claim that 2+2=5. Then he repeats his trope that scientists and engineers claiming that 2+2=4 are "nutcases." What science or engineering education has Michael Griffith ever had? Inquiring minds want to know. Study the film, folks. The visible serial explosions pulverized hundreds of thousands of tons of WTC concrete into the atmosphere of Manhattan, while liquefying and explosively ejecting steel beams at high velocity. The explosives were burning at high enough temperatures to liquefy steel. Burning jet fuel, office furniture, and refrigerators simply can't do that. Griffith's argument is scientifically absurd. The buildings were pre-wired with military grade thermitic explosives.

Ben, Would you also advise newcomers to be civil to Education Forum members-- e.g., not erroneously referring to them as "nutjobs," "nutty," "nutcases," "deranged," "far left," "ultra liberal," etc.? As for "hardcore scientific" debates-- science is science. Then there is pseudo-science. But people need to know enough science to discern the difference. The CIA/government propagandists have a history of using scientists and academicians to promote false narratives about their ops. One example is Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez being recruited to promote a bogus cellophane-wrapped-melon "simulation" of JFK's assassination. Alvarez's cellophane-wrapped-melon was a pseudo-scientific "simulation" of a human skull being struck by a bullet. Another example was Bush & Cheney's NIST computer "simulation" of the WTC demolitions, in which the authors refused to publish the parameters used in their computer "simulation," and pretended that there were no explosions during the collapse of those skyscrapers.

Ben, I assume that you are referring to Michael Griffith's inappropriate use of erroneous words like "nutty," "nutcase," "nutjob," "deranged," "far left," and "ultra liberal" to describe historians like James DiEugenio and the scholars, scientists, and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Thanks for expressing your perspicacious concerns about Michael's inappropriate forum conduct. As for truth, it's not as subjective as you imagine in matters relating to scientific, forensic, and historical facts. Also, is it uncivil or disagreeable to disagree with falsehoods?

Ron, Sorry to hear about the damage to your house and truck. My wife just flew home from a family funeral in Fort Worth on Tuesday afternoon. She narrowly missed that storm. I was playing golf in the wind up here today with some other old guys from Denver, and we were talking about the noticeable increase in severe windstorms and hail up here in recent years-- presumably from climate change. Everyone on our block had their roofs replaced, due to hail damage, about three years ago, and we had more hail damage last summer, despite using hail-resistant shingles.

Chris, You may be overlooking Leslie Sharp's keen observations here. The truth is that the Republican Party has been waging war on U.S. democracy in recent years, and Tucker Carlson has been a participant in that war. The obvious examples are Trump's Stop-the-Steal hoax, and his J6 mob attack on the U.S. Congress. Tucker promoted the former, and denied the latter. But the Republican war on U.S. democracy has been much broader, as Leslie pointed out. It has included systematic efforts to roll back voting rights, targeting minority groups and the poor. It has also involved a long-term GOP strategem of stacking the courts with right wing judges, for the purpose of promoting plutocratic corporate power, (e.g., Citizens United) rolling back voting rights, (Shelby v. Holder) and rolling back rights for women and LGBT citizens (e.g., Dobbs.) All of these anti-democratic Republican initiatives have been predicated on appeals to white supremacy, Great Replacement Theory, misogyny, homophobia, etc. Historically, Tucker Carlson has been a cheer leader for all of the above.

Ben, I'd prefer that we stick to posting the facts, without worrying about who might be offended by the truth.

Pat, I don't need to read "Tink's paper" (whoever Tink is) to understand the scientific evidence proving the explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. I've read a number of science papers on the subject at the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth site, and links. I studied a lot of science in college and medical school, (including physics, chemistry, and physical chemistry) and I have studied the science data of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. To reiterate, start with basic empiricism. Put aside the false mass media narratives about what happened and simply look at the film. The serial explosions that demolished WTC1 and WTC2 are clearly visible and audible on film. They were also described by multiple witnesses, whose testimony was carefully omitted from Phillip Zelikow's bogus 9/11 cover up commission. It amazes me that many people have difficulty trusting their eyes and ears and simply perceiving the empirical data-- rather than believing what authority figures on television tell them. Next, study the basic physics data showing that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed to the ground at the approximate acceleration of gravity, indicating that there was zero resistance to collapse. In other words, the steel substructures were rapidly demolished. It wasn't a pile-driver or "pancaking" phenomenon. The steel columns were rapidly, symmetrically obliterated. Third, study the chemical evidence of the liquefication of the steel by extreme high-temperature, military grade thermitic explosives. The steel beams were cut. Thermitic residues were found in the WTC by non-government researchers, along with evidence of molten steel. Fourth, study the pulverization of the WTC concrete-- along with the explosive pulverization of human bodies, office furniture, etc. Incidentally, the Bush/Cheney government, the NIST, Mayor Giuliani, OEM, and Larry Silverstein's private insurers never conducted a forensic arson investigation of Ground Zero. I think Silverstein forbade an independent arson investigation by his insurers in the event of a "terrorist" attack on the WTC. Instead, Giuliani cordoned off Ground Zero and quickly shipped the demolished steel debris to China, sans forensic examination.

This raises an interesting question. Is the Education Forum member, Michael Griffith, possibly a government-operated ChatGPT bot? 🤥

Chris, I have said from Day One that I really appreciate Tucker Carlson's shocking advocacy of JFKA Truth. At the same time, I recognize that Carlson has been a longstanding promoter of false Trumplicon narratives-- e.g., Stop-the-Steal, and the "Patriot Purge" narrative about Trump's J6 coup. So, my point was simply that "liberals" have had legitimate reasons to be skeptical about Carlson. I don't think most progressive Democrats in the U.S. are naive about the problems with our corporate plutocracy and military industrial complex. I strongly opposed our invasion of Iraq in 2003, and caught some flak for it at the time. I also disagreed with the Obama era CIA Operation Timber Sycamore in Syria. (Incidentally, I also disagree with the current military strategy of Ukraine escalating the war by attempting to re-take Crimea. I think the U.S. and NATO should pursue a peace deal with Moscow -- an end to the conflict.)

Pat, Molten steel was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero, and visibly cascading from the towers. If you study basic chemistry, you will learn that jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel into a liquid state. Period. Nor was there sufficient jet fuel to burn those massive steel substructures (not to mention the visible explosive pulverization of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete!) Most of the jet fuel exploded in a fireball on impact with the high upper floors. That false "jet fuel" narrative was promulgated in the mainstream media immediately after the towers were explosively demolished-- by the same man who was in charge of WTC security during the weeks prior to 9/11. It was a coordinated psy op-- analogous to the mass media narrative about Oswald on 11/22/63.

The "paradox" that you describe is actually a mere anomaly. As Mr. Schnapf described, Tucker Carlson's surprising recent advocacy for JFKA truth is anomalous, given his longstanding history of promoting falsehoods on behalf of the right wing Trumplicon establishment. You and Chris Barnard are misinterpreting the significance of "liberal" skepticism about Carlson.

Pat, The collapse of WTC7 was, obviously, an expert, controlled demolition, and the ignorance and denial on the subject is, frankly, depressing. It's not rocket science. Steel skyscrapers don't abruptly collapse to the ground in an abrupt-onset free fall as a result of office fires. In fact, WTC7 collapsed in an abrupt-onset, symmetrical free fall on 9/11 after owner Larry Silverstein " told them to pull it." To whom was he referring as "them?" Your point about valid and wacky theories existing on a spectrum is a good one. The scientific "9/11 Truth" research that I have referred to here is that of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and the excellent analyses of Professor David Ray Griffin. I'm not familiar with Fetzer, et.al. And Michael Griffith continues to post utter nonsense about the obvious explosive demolitions of the WTC Twin Towers. The serial explosions that pulverized the concrete and rapidly demolished the massive steel sub-structures of WTC1 and WTC2 are clearly visible and audible on film.

Well, Michael, since you, yourself, keep bringing up the subject of 9/11 here on our JFKA forum-- and making false statements about the 9/11 science data-- how about telling us what the melting point of steel is? Is the question too difficult for you to answer? And tell us how you explain the obvious, visible explosions seen on film during the free fall collapses of the WTC Twin Towers. You keep dodging those basic science questions, while repeating your false tropes about the highly-educated, professionally-accredited scientists, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth being "nutty." It's the kind of propaganda we are all used to reading in the mainstream media, and on government-funded internet propaganda websites, but it's out of place here on the Education Forum. This is a place where we talk about the suppressed data that debunks false government narratives promoted in the M$M.

18 Pictures That Perfectly Answer The Question “Why Doesn’t Anybody Want To Work Anymore?” (msn.com)

Two questions for the Education Forum. Isn't this forum regarded as, possibly, the most popular forum in the U.S. for discussions about the JFKA research and other research challenging U.S. government narratives about putative black ops? If so, wouldn't it be a logical target for Cass Sunstein-type U.S. government "cognitive infiltrators"-- if they do, in fact, exist? Asking for a friend. 😬

So, once again, Michael Griffith is posting falsehoods about the historical facts, while using false, defamatory terms like "nutty" to describe accurate commentaries about history (and science, in the case of the 9/11 research.) The DiEugenio article (above) about Prouty's history speaks for itself. It's spot on, and well documented. There's nothing "nutty" about it. I will point out to the forum that Griffith has also continued to avoid answering direct questions about his false statements here, while referring to accurate scientific and historical commentaries as "nutty," "deranged," "nutcase," "nutjob," etc. These are direct quotes from his recent posts here on the Education Forum. Doesn't this constitute a violation of Education Forum policies?

On the contrary, blindness about Tucker Carlson's well-documented dishonesty seems, rather, to be an attribute of his conservative fans. As for Carlson's interest in the JFK assassination, many liberals here have welcomed it, myself included. So, your comment is wrong on both accounts. In other words, he's a turkey, but we're all grateful for his surprising interest in the JFK assassination.

LOL...🤪

Frankly, Matt, I'm shocked that an Englishman would allow himself to get so emotional. Chris needs to get a grip on himself, at once, and carry on like a civilized representative of the British Empire. 🤓

Actually, Ron, I enjoyed reading your article. I learned something new by reading it. But I also think it's the kind of thing that Prouty defamers like Michael Griffith will blow out of proportion.

Ron, You're missing the big picture by straining your gnat. How critically important was Prouty's book on JFK, the CIA, and Vietnam, historically? Can you think of anything comparable, written by "Deep State" insiders in the JFK administration? He had rare inside information about CIA special ops, and important clues about the JFK murder mystery. He also had a tendency to speculate about the subject, and occasionally get some minor details wrong.

Yes, and the truly galling thing is that Trump's stochastic terrorism has already resulted in U.S. citizens being injured and murdered. The worst example was the El Paso Walmart Massacre, but there were also the Baltimore newspaper murders. The judge who issued the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago received death threats, as did Ruby Freeman and her daughter in Trump's Georgia election fraud scheme, and Dr. Anthony Fauci and his family. I won't be surprised if some of these prosecutors and judges are attacked by MAGA Bomber types.