W. Niederhut

Discussing the scientific facts about 9/11 on this forum is like herding cats.

That's not entirely correct, Jeff. The scientific evidence of controlled, explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 is overwhelming. Those were free fall, symmetrical collapses, sans resistance. The entire steel sub-structures had to be abruptly demolished by something powerful enough to sever the massive steel columns. In the cases of WTC1 and WTC2, you can also clearly observe the molten (orange) steel cascades and serial explosions that pulverized thousands of tons of concrete into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan in virtual pyroclastic flows. I agree that there is also other evidence that 9/11 was a false flag op. The aggressive high-level FBI suppression of the field reports about the Muslim "Al Qaeda" patsies prior to 9/11 is one example among many. Former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, has documented some of that strange FBI conduct during Louis Freeh's FBI Directorship in 2001. The perpetrators of 9/11 were, apparently creating legends for their Muslim "Al Qaeda" patsies in 2001, and FBI field reports about their suspicious activities were suppressed at a high level by the Bush-Cheney administration prior to 9/11. Oddly, the legends, themselves, were flawed. Those guys were supposed to be devout Muslim Fundamentalist martyrs engaged in a jihad, but, in reality, they had CIA ties, (as did Bin Laden) drank alcohol, snorted cocaine, and cavorted with strippers. In the case of Hamzi Hanjour, they were also lousy pilots-- somewhat reminiscent of Oswald's lousy marksmanship. And many of them were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes. None of them were photographed boarding airplanes on 9/11, and none were listed on the flight manifests. But the perpetrators of 9/11 didn't need hijackers. Raytheon's remote-piloting GPS technology for Boeing jetliners was successfully tested in Marana, Arizona by August of 2001. The U.S. military was able to successfully take off, precisely maneuver, and land Boeing jetliners without pilots prior to September of 2001.

If the January 6th coup had succeeded, Trump probably would have appointed Buffalo-Horn guy to the Dakota Access Pipeline PAC. 🤥

Frankly, my dear Mark, I don't give a damn about your alleged "polls" and propaganda sources. Let's get back to the actual science of the WTC demolitions and the pseudo-scientific NIST Report. I'm posting the answers (in red below) to my questions from Saturday that you still refuse to answer. 1) What was the NIST Report's explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical, free fall collapse of WTC7? They offered no explanation. Their computer "simulation" merely described a theoretical model for the initiation of a partial upper floor collapse. But there was no observed top-down gravitational "pile driver" effect during the WTC7 collapse. The distance between the upper WTC7 floors remained constant as the entire building collapsed in a free fall. The NIST offered no explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical demolition of the entire 47 floor steel sub-structure! 2) What was the NIST's explanation for the observed explosive pulverization of 900,000 tons of concrete (and office furniture, human bodies, etc.) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11? They had no explanation for the massive explosive pulverization of the WTC concrete, office furniture, and human bodies. In fact, they didn't even acknowledge the obvious explosions. 3) How did they explain the observed liquefied steel that was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero? They did not acknowledge the existence of the liquefied steel described by multiple witnesses. 4) How did they explain the observed (and audible) serial explosions during the free fall collapses of WTC1 and WTC2? They did not acknowledge the visible and audible serial explosions. 5) Did the NIST conduct a forensic/arson investigation of the WTC debris for evidence of explosives? The NIST did not even examine the WTC debris for evidence of explosives. 6) If steel skyscrapers collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration, what is the resistance (r) to collapse caused by their steel substructures? Zero. Any resistance to collapse would have impeded free fall acceleration.

I agree that Pence is no paragon of morality or honesty, (as advertised in GOP Evangelical circles) but he did have the decency to defy Trump and certify the election results on January 6th. Raskin believes that Pence actually saved American democracy on January 6th. And I'm genuinely curious about Pence's reasons for telling Tim Geibels during the attack on the Capitol that he didn't trust the Secret Service limo drivers. Why not? Did someone tip Pence off about a Trump plot to physically remove him from the Capitol on January 6th? And why was the Secret Service order to move Pence hush hush? What are they hiding? Trump and his hardcore fans already despise Pence as a "traitor." They won't vote for him in any case. So, if Pence has reason to believe that Trump and the Secret Service conspired to block the election certification, what does he have to lose by telling the truth and exposing the plot?

Mark, You still haven't answered the basic science questions about the NIST Report that I posted for you on Saturday (above.) Honestly, I fully expected you to duck those questions and change the subject, and you did. I'll address your distorted argument about my objections to the oil industry propaganda denying climate change, but first be so kind as to answer my questions about the NIST Report. Let's deal with one pseudo-science propaganda problem at a time. 🤥

Well said, Dennis. Science is science. Mark's concept of "fringe science" is an oxymoron of sorts. It is more accurate to speak of science and pseudo-science. Luis Alvarez's Exploding Melon theory and the NIST Report are pseudo-science. The research of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is science.

True, Kirk, but I wasn't referring to motives of political self-interest. I was referring to ethics and the rule of law. If Pence believes that Trump conspired to block the certification of a Presidential election by physically removing him from the Capitol, he has a moral responsibility to speak up. Again, why did Pence, allegedly, tell Tim Geibels that he didn't trust the Secret Service agents driving the limo? Why did Ornato, allegedly, tell Kellogg that their conversation about the Secret Service order to remove Pence from the Capitol "never happened?" These are not rhetorical questions.

On the flip side, I doubt that a Washington Post journalist would have simply made up this January 6th Pence story without a source. I wonder if anyone has attempted to verify the details with Mike Pence, himself, or with Tim Geibels. For the most part, Pence has been as quiet as a mouse since January 6th about an incident of singular importance in American history. When did a sitting President ever attempt to block the certification of an election?

Exactly right, and I was actually going to bring up the case of Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez and his cellophane-wrapped Exploding Melon as an example of the way that the U.S. government has used scientific "experts" to endorse bogus explanations of black ops. The bogus NIST Report is a Luis Alvarez Exploding Melon type snow job used by the Bush-Cheney administration to confuse the public about the obvious explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11. They developed an alleged computer simulation of the WTC demolitions, then used secret, undisclosed parameters to "explain" the demolitions-- while refusing to publish their numbers! And I will add that Mark Stevens is not really talking about the scientific data I posted (above) which debunks the NIST Report. Instead, he continues to duck the basic science data while repeating the same talking points about mainstream media "scientific opinions" endorsing the NIST. His is merely an Argument From Authority-- the same propaganda technique that was used in Luis Alvarez's bogus Exploding Melon theory of the backward trajectory of JFK's head on 11/22/63. To illustrate the science facts, I would like Mark to answer a few basic questions, without changing the subject by referring back to his Argument From Authority. 1) What was the NIST Report's explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical, free fall collapse of WTC7? 2) What was the NIST's explanation for the observed explosive pulverization of 900,000 tons of concrete (and office furniture, human bodies, etc.) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11? 3) How did they explain the observed liquefied steel that was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero? 4) How did they explain the observed (and audible) serial explosions during the free fall collapses of WTC1 and WTC2? 5) Did the NIST conduct a forensic/arson investigation of the WTC debris for evidence of explosives? 6) If steel skyscrapers collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration, what is the resistance (r) to collapse caused by their steel substructures?

What will it take for journalists and the public to finally learn the truth about JFK's crucial decision in 1963 to get out of Vietnam, and the reversal of that decision after November 22, 1963? It's a critical historical fact relating to JFK's assassination and the machinations of the U.S. military-industrial complex. A similar question is, "What will it take for the public to finally learn the truth about our working relationship with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the Balkans, and beyond? Most people seem to know that Brzezinski and the CIA trained and supported Bin Laden and his "Al Qaeda" mujaheddin in the Soviet Afghan War. Fewer know about Bin Laden's involvement with the U.S. supported Izetbegovic government in Sarajevo during the Bosnian civil war, and with the KLA in Kosovo in the 1990s. (Former U.S. War College staffer John Schindler wrote an interesting book on the subject called, Unholy Terror.) Fewer still know that Bin Laden issued statements to journalists at Al Jazeera and in Pakistan shortly after 9/11 disavowing any involvement in the 9/11 op-- or that the video and audio tapes broadcast in the U.S. mainstream media, in which Bin Laden allegedly claimed responsibility for 9/11, were crude forgeries and mis-translations. Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator, (fluent in Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani) has also claimed that Bin Laden was still working for the CIA during and after 9/11. (Classified Woman.) Former FBI Director Robert Mueller later told Congress that the FBI "never found a single scrap of paper" linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. And Dick Cheney told the 9/11 Commission that evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 had "never been forthcoming."

That's rich, coming from a state where the Koch brothers bribed former Governor Rick Scott to ban any mention of "climate change" by state employees. 🤥

Indeed. Condoleeza Rice's close colleague, Phillip Zelikow, is an interesting case. His real expertise has to do with crafting and propagating public myths relating to disasters, which is precisely what he did with his 9/11 Commission Report. The parallels with the Warren Commission Report are striking-- e.g., drafting a preconceived narrative and assiduously ignoring and filtering out all of the contrary evidence. As for Henry Kissinger, I have noticed a few facts in the public domain about his possible connection to 9/11. 1) After the controversial Bush v. Gore SCOTUS ruling in December of 2000, Kissinger curiously said that he "could think of nothing that would improve George W. Bush's popularity more dramatically than a terrorist attack on the U.S." 2) On 9/11, Kissinger appeared on Sky Television in Europe to announce that the 9/11 attacks were most likely perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Something had to be done about "terrorism," etc. 3) Kissinger & Associates CEO, L. Paul Bremer, appeared on CNN television in Manhattan, within an hour of the attack on the World Trade Center, and announced that the 9/11 attack on the WTC was most likely perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Something had to be done about "terrorism," etc. (BTW, Paul Bremer looked remarkable calm on CNN for a guy working in an office where 300 of his Marsh & McLennan colleagues had just been violently killed by a crashing plane! The nose cone of the first plane to hit the WTC struck precisely at L. Paul Bremer's Marsh & McLennan office in the WTC.) Bremer was later appointed by Bush and Rumsfeld, in May of 2004, as the military governor of occupied Iraq in charge of implementing Rumsfeld's disastrous de-Baathification policy. 4) Under mounting pressure to finally conduct an investigation of 9/11, George W. Bush asked Henry Kissinger to chair a 9/11 Commission.

Mark, The NIST report is not accepted science. In fact, it has been thoroughly debunked. Read the scientific references I posted for you (above.) It's not a matter of opinion or mainstream media spin (and truly astonishing censorship.) It's a matter of scientific fact.

I'm glad to hear that the second part of JFK Revisited, apparently, focuses on Deep State and foreign policy motives for killing JFK. That, to me, reflects the essence of the "Destiny Betrayed" concept-- i.e., that JFK's murder was a betrayal of a more just and peaceful destiny for humanity. I don't know the details, but I wish Oliver Stone had entitled the film, Destiny Betrayed, to emphasize that important historical concept. I wonder what percentage of U.S. citizens today even know that JFK fully intended to get out of Vietnam. My hunch is that it's a fairly small percentage.

Meanwhile, Kenneth Starr's ex-mistress is, apparently, spilling the beans about Kavanaugh and his Whitewater mentor.* Let's recall that Brett Kavanaugh played a central role in leaking Kenneth Starr's Whitewater grand jury material about Bill Clinton's private, consensual sex life to the press. More recently, Kavanaugh has strongly opposed the release of any grand jury material from Robert Mueller's Russia-gate investigation. Makes a lot of sense. * https://crooksandliars.com/2021/07/ken-starr-s-ex-mistress-reveals-what "I did not expose myself to that woman"

Mark, You, obviously, haven't studied, or understood, the bona fide scientific research on the 9/11 WTC demolitions. Let's talk about the scientific data after you've actually studied it. Here are some quality references.* Meanwhile, if you're sincerely concerned about censorship in our media, perhaps you can explain to us why the bona fide scientific and forensic evidence about what really happened on 9/11 has been completely blacked out of the U.S. mainstream media for the past 20 years! *https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/beyond-misinformation https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/419-the-missing-jolt-a-simple-refutation-of-the-nist-bazant-collapse-hypothesis

Mark, Please. Thousands of scientists and engineers who have actually studied the WTC demolitions overwhelmingly reject the NIST report, which was nothing more than an expensive, pseudo-scientific cover up by the Bush-Cheney administration. It was intended to bamboozle people who don't understand basic physics. It's analogous to the Warren Commission's Single Bullet Theory. Are you aware that the Bush-Cheney NIST guys refused to even publish the data they used for the parameters in their bogus computer "simulation" of the WTC demolitions? That they didn't even attempt to explain the observed, symmetrical free fall collapse of WTC7? Instead, they described a possible model for an initial partial upper story collapse-- as if that alone could explain the abrupt demolition of the massive steel sub-structure of the entire building. Look at the GIF (below) of the collapse of WT7. Notice that the distance between the upper floors remains constant as the entire structure descends at the acceleration of gravity! There is no gravitational pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors. It was an expert explosive demolition. Albert Einstein one said, "If you can't explain something straightforwardly, you probably don't understand it." Re-read what I wrote (above) about Newtonian physics and the free fall collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. It's not rocket science. Free fall collapse = zero resistance to collapse. Ergo, the massive steel girders were abruptly demolished. And if you study the film, you can easily observe the serial explosions that pulverized the WTC towers. Below: The distance between the upper floors of WTC7 remains constant as the building collapses in a free fall.

Yes, sadly, it's a banner year for Darwin Awards in the U.S. www.newsweek.com/trump-supporter-who-protested-against-vaccinations-dies-covid-19-1611673

Mark, this is pseudo-scientific bunk. If you know anything about Newtonian physics, you will recognize that steel skyscrapers cannot collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration unless the resistance to gravitational acceleration is zero. So what abruptly eliminated the resistance to free fall collapse of the steel skyscrapers -- i.e., what abruptly demolished the lower steel substructures? The steel substructures of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were expertly demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11. In fact, we can clearly see (and hear) the serial explosions on the video and audio recordings of 9/11. This is one of the few subjects where I actually agree with Donald Trump-- and it's a subject that Donald Trump understands very well, because of his experience as a New York real estate developer.

Kirk, Again, the subject of this thread is whether George H.W. Bush and the Company killed the Mockingbird in the 70s. Ulfkotte claims that they didn't. Your Wikipedia stuff has repeatedly changed the subject, which is why it was written. It reminds me of John McAdams & Co. repeatedly calling Fletcher Prouty an Anti-Semitic crackpot, based on Prouty speaking at a Liberty Lobby conference, etc. It was a smokescreen-- a deflection from Prouty's detailed, firsthand accounts of CIA special ops, including evidence of their involvement in JFK's assassination.. And, like Prouty, Ulfkotte has also exposed the CIA-- i.e., their active involvement in the European mainstream media in the 21st century. As for the Wikipedia deflection, I don't know much about Ulfkotte's involvement with critics of Islam in Germany. It sounds kind of Trump-esque to me-- racist paranoia about the Turkish Gastarbeiten and the recent influx of Syrian war refugees from CIA Operation Timber Sycamore. But Ulfkotte is correct about the fact that the Nazis recruited Islamic SS units like the Skanderberg regiment to fight against ethnic Orthodox Christians in the Balkans during WWII-- in Albania, Kosovo, and Bosnia. Ulfkotte was, apparently, a war correspondent and an assistant editor of a major European newspaper for many years. He studied Arabic, and lived in the Middle East during the Iran-Iraq War. So he, obviously, knew a great deal about Islam. I'm skeptical about the claim that he accused Obama of burning Bibles, but I haven't read the book which is the alleged Wikipedia source for the claim. As for Europe's 1,300 year conflict with Islam, it's a complicated, bloody subject that I have studied in considerable depth during the past 20 years. After 9/11, I read Sir Steven Runciman's definitive history of the Crusades, and British/Egyptian historian Bat Ye'or's writings about the history of Islam in the Levant and the Balkans. Another interesting read is U.S. War College Professor John Schindler's account of the CIA's collaboration with Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" in Bosnia and Kosovo-- Unholy Terror. My take is that the CIA was working with Bin Laden and the Islamic militias in Kosovo and Bosnia to topple Milosevic's communist rump state in Belgrade-- as they had done in Afghanistan against the Soviets. I do still believe that the Bush-Cheney "War on Terror" was mainly predicated on false flag ops vilifying Muslim CIA associates like Bin Laden and his "Al Qaeda" mujaheddin fighters from the Soviet Afghan and Bosnian Wars. But that doesn't mean that the 1,300 year history of Islamic jihad in Europe never happened! I traveled to Istanbul in the summer of 2000, and met the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the Phenar. The gate to the Phenar was guarded by a soldier with a machine gun, because the place had been recently fire-bombed by alleged Muslim terrorists. On that same trip, I also attended a Greek Orthodox Church service in Taksim Square -- where the steel doors of the church were immediately chained shut after the liturgy, due to fears of a Muslim terrorist attack. (And, in fact, the Novo Sholom Synagogue across the street from the Orthodox Trinity Cathedral in Galata was bombed shortly after my visit in 2000.)

Benjamin, IMO, there is no credible dissent from the scientific consensus on climate change, but there is an overwhelming amount of industry-funded disinformation on the subject (Heartland Institute, Fox News, etc.) and has been for the past 20 years. The climate change denial propaganda has been motivated entirely by the quest for fossil fuel industry profits, at the expense of the health and survival of the planet and the human race. How can that possibly be ethical? Formally, censoring this kind of destructive oil industry propaganda is analogous to prohibitions against false advertising. The concept is to protect the public from unscrupulous, harmful profiteers. Shouldn't the same ethical principles apply to protecting the citizenry from stochastic terrorism -- e.g., demagoguery that incites violence against minorities and immigrants? And how about disinformation that directly endangers the public health? Should it be permitted?