Cognitive Infiltration

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Ok. I've seen it several times now. People claiming that the WTC 7 building collapse was obviously a controlled demolition. But I haven't seen one of them mention Josiah Thompson's research into this.

Thompson--perhaps the most widely respected JFK researcher ever--and almost certainly the most respected researcher to ever spend time on this forum--shared with us a paper he wrote on this subject as part of a lawsuit that got into all the details regarding how the building collapsed when the building looked intact in photos taken from certain angles, etc. It was quite a bit of research that left the truthers on this forum without answers, at the time.

If his paper has been subsequently debunked, I would find that of interest. But, as we've seen with JFK, people will repeat long-debunked arguments for decades and decades. So I'm wondering if any of those feeling certain WTC 7 collapsed as part of a conspiracy have read his paper (I am calling it a paper but I think it was over 100 pages long) or if any of the sources they are citing have responded to this paper. And if not, why not?

While Tink is not infallible, and could be wrong about this and other things, his research is always worth a look, and, if rejected, demands a response. 

Has anyone here prepared such a response, or even read his paper?

Pat,

     Stop it, please.  The claims that WTC7 was abruptly demolished in a symmetrical free fall as a result of smoldering office fires is, frankly, bunk.  It's scientifically absurd.

     Office fires (furniture, carpets, etc.) don't burn at a hot enough temperature to abruptly demolish 47 floors of steel columns.

     In the history of burning steel skyscrapers, most have burned for long periods of time-- even more than 24 hours-- without ever collapsing.  The steel columns are simply charred. 

      That is why NYFD experts thought Rudy Giuliani was nuts when he told them that the Twin Towers were going to collapse on 9/11.  Giuliani told Peter Jennings (on 9/11) that he had been forewarned that the Twin Towers were going to collapse.  (He later changed his story and told Phillip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission that he had NOT been forewarned about the impending collapse of the Twin Towers.)

     Additionally, if WTC7 had collapsed on 9/11 as a result of mere smoldering office fires, the collapse would have been partial, asymmetrical, and in gradual steps, with observed pancaking of floors.

     None of that happened in the case of the WTC7 demolition.

     Go back and study the film.  (Above, with Dan Rather's commentary.) This time, pay attention to the distance between the floors of WTC7 as the entire structure abruptly collapses to the ground, symmetrically, at the acceleration of gravity.  The upper floors do NOT collapse on to lower floors during the descent.  There was no "pancaking" or pile-driver phenomenon.

      Finally, you have completely ignored-- leap-frogged-- my post documenting the fact that WTC7 owner Larry Silverstein "told them to pull it" before watching WTC7 abruptly collapse in an expert demolition.

      What do you have to say about the Silverstein comment?

  

Edited April 30, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

     Stop it, please.  The claims that WTC7 was abruptly demolished in a symmetrical free fall as a result of smoldering office fires is, frankly, bunk.  It's scientifically absurd.

     Office fires (furniture, carpets, etc.) don't burn at a hot enough temperature to abruptly demolish 47 floors of steel columns.

     In the history of burning steel skyscrapers, most have burned for long periods of time-- even more than 24 hours-- without ever collapsing.  The steel columns are simply charred. 

      That is why NYFD experts thought Rudy Giuliani was nuts when he told them that the Twin Towers were going to collapse on 9/11.  Giuliani told Peter Jennings (on 9/11) that he had been forewarned that the Twin Towers were going to collapse.  (He later changed his story and told Phillip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission that he had NOT been forewarned about the impending collapse of the Twin Towers.)

     Additionally, if WTC7 had collapsed on 9/11 as a result of mere smoldering office fires, the collapse would have been partial, asymmetrical, and in gradual steps, with observed pancaking of floors.

     None of that happened in the case of the WTC7 demolition.

     Go back and study the film.  (Above, with Dan Rather's commentary.) This time, pay attention to the distance between the floors of WTC7 as the entire structure abruptly collapses to the ground, symmetrically, at the acceleration of gravity.  The upper floors do NOT collapse on to lower floors during the descent.  There was no "pancaking" or pile-driver phenomenon.

      Finally, you have completely ignored-- leap-frogged-- my post documenting the fact that WTC7 owner Larry Silverstein "told them to pull it" before watching WTC7 abruptly collapse in an expert demolition.

      What do you have to say about the Silverstein comment?

  

As I recall, all the claims in circulation at the time of Tink's paper were addressed in his paper. I'm going purely off memory here, but I think he was hired by the insurance company of someone with offices in the building who believed it had been a controlled demolition, and spent months looking into this, and ended up writing a report presenting photos from rarely-seen angles showing the building to have been hollowed out by the debris from the collapse of the towers. As I recall, the truthers on this forum had no real response. 

I take from your response, moreover, that you have never read Tink's paper and never will. So...

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As I recall, all the claims in circulation at the time of Tink's paper were addressed in his paper. I'm going purely off memory here, but I think he was hired by the insurance company of someone with offices in the building who believed it had been a controlled demolition, and spent months looking into this, and ended up writing a report presenting photos from rarely-seen angles showing the building to have been hollowed out by the debris from the collapse of the towers. As I recall, the truthers on this forum had no real response. 

I take from your response, moreover, that you have never read Tink's paper and never will. So...

No more pseudo-scientific bunk, please.

What ABRUPTLY demolished 47 floors of steel columns in WTC7?

The abrupt collapse was free fall.  Measure it.  Zero resistance to collapse.

And what do you have to say about Silverstein telling them to "pull it?"

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Matthew Koch]

Silverstein is clearly talking about pulling the effort to put the fires out of the building.. 

https://rumble.com/v2glhnj-building-7-fires.html

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As I recall, all the claims in circulation at the time of Tink's paper were addressed in his paper. I'm going purely off memory here, but I think he was hired by the insurance company of someone with offices in the building who believed it had been a controlled demolition, and spent months looking into this, and ended up writing a report presenting photos from rarely-seen angles showing the building to have been hollowed out by the debris from the collapse of the towers. As I recall, the truthers on this forum had no real response. 

I take from your response, moreover, that you have never read Tink's paper and never will. So...

The video I posted from the University of Alaska would be an answer to Thompson's paper. The building symmetrically collapsing is a smoking gun because a fire doesn't burn evenly in a building and buildings collapse where they are weakest, so to have three in one day and never again is pretty obvious IMO.. 

[John Cotter]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Ok. I've seen it several times now. People claiming that the WTC 7 building collapse was obviously a controlled demolition. But I haven't seen one of them mention Josiah Thompson's research into this.

Thompson--perhaps the most widely respected JFK researcher ever--and almost certainly the most respected researcher to ever spend time on this forum--shared with us a paper he wrote on this subject as part of a lawsuit that got into all the details regarding how the building collapsed when the building looked intact in photos taken from certain angles, etc. It was quite a bit of research that left the truthers on this forum without answers, at the time.

If his paper has been subsequently debunked, I would find that of interest. But, as we've seen with JFK, people will repeat long-debunked arguments for decades and decades. So I'm wondering if any of those feeling certain WTC 7 collapsed as part of a conspiracy have read his paper (I am calling it a paper but I think it was over 100 pages long) or if any of the sources they are citing have responded to this paper. And if not, why not?

While Tink is not infallible, and could be wrong about this and other things, his research is always worth a look, and, if rejected, demands a response. 

Has anyone here prepared such a response, or even read his paper?

Your description of Josiah Thompson as “perhaps the most widely respected JFK researcher ever” doesn’t hold water.

The short Umbrella Man (UM) video that he made with Errol Morris is so obviously and fundamentally flawed as to seriously call into question Thompson’s intellectual if not moral credibility.

I have explained this elsewhere, but the gist of it is that by focusing on UM in isolation from the Dark Complexioned man, Thompson committed a strawman fallacy which ironically invalidates his dismissal of the significance of UM.

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Your description of Josiah Thompson as “perhaps the most widely respected JFK researcher ever” doesn’t hold water.

The short Umbrella Man (UM) video that he made with Errol Morris is so obviously and fundamentally flawed as to seriously call into question Thompson’s intellectual if not moral credibility.

I have explained this elsewhere, but the gist of it is that by focusing on UM in isolation from the Dark Complexioned man, Thompson committed a strawman fallacy which ironically invalidates his dismissal of the significance of UM.

Well, the video you cite is proof of what I said. Of all the long-time conspiracy theorists, Thompson has by far the most credibility with the mainstream media, and documentary film-maker types like Errol Morris. He is also widely respected and appreciated by the vast majority of the research community--people in email chains who go to conventions, etc. Only the fringey Fetzer types dislike or distrust Tink. As we approached the 50th, Fetzer guaranteed this Forum that Tink would show his "true colors" and do a newspaper or TV interview admitting he'd been wrong all along, and that it was really just Oswald. But he was wrong, terribly wrong. Tink, of course, instead doubled-down and put out a follow-up to his ground-breaking Six Seconds in Dallas. 

[Ron Ecker]

12 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Larry Silverstein collected $4.5 billion from a consortium of insurance companies for the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 demolitions, yet no forensic arson investigation was ever conducted.

Silverstein was awarded the long-term lease for the WTC Twin Towers by the Port Authority in July of 2001.

He controlled access to the WTC during the weeks preceding 9/11.

 

He customarily ate breakfast in a restaurant in one of the towers. But on the morning of 9/11 he just happened to have a doctor's appointment. An appointment, he said, that his wife made him keep.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

As so often, Pat, the voice of reason. He leads the discussion in the right direction. I've just got a bit of a time lag. I'll address the 911 thing later.

 

 

 Pat: Most everyone will discuss a "they" that they believe is acting against their interests, and attributes powers to this "they" that they do not have. No matter which side you talk to, this "they" is always bigger and stronger than they are. They are always the underdog and this "they" is always the big dog.

 

While I think everyone has an aspect of that.  I don't think most people think like that, but there is an increasing trend in that direction. .But if you spend enough time here on the forum, you'll hear that frequently because everything's a conspiracy here.

 

This thinking is thoroughly ingrained, and in advanced stage here, in that it's continually repeated, it's over, we're toast, the adversary is omnipotent, can do anything with impunity, and there's no way back. But I think it's in an earlier stage of development with the public at large also, which is the result of more people feeling  their lives and the lives of those around them are getting out of control.

 

Pat:It comes from a deep-rooted psychological need. People take comfort in being oppressed. It's far easier than admitting the world is chaos and that they are "losing" through natural selection. 

 

I think the people here do it as just a defense mechanism that people use to not take control of their lives. They've concocted these super devils for whom they will never hope to get out from under and unknowingly use places like this forum to validate and reinforce with others their sense of overwhelming helplessness, so as never take any real action. So I guess that is taking comfort in being "oppressed."

 

But, as I said  it is true, apart from this forum that more and  more people are  attributing things to the great "they' or "the powers that be" conspiracy theories that can be attributed to just logic. (which I think  you use the term "random"*)

 

Look at how many things are attributed to conspiracies here, and now a few new ones..

 

First the Granddaddy,  Donald Trump lost in 2020 because the MIC establishment  decided he had to go down, not because he lost by 7 million votes. That couldn't be, because Trump said himself the election was a hoax because the "deep state" is going after him. Don't you understand?

 

Now, Tucker Carlson got canned because he was exposing the "deep state"and then with the JFKA files, "they" really  started getting scared when Tucker revealed just what those remaining JFKA files contain, right? "They" saw we were breathing down their necks! Then "they" seamlessly pulled Tucker's firing ......, and no one will ever know about it but me and my friends at the forum!

 

This despite that external realities should tell you there's an obvious repetitive wave of the same thing happening with Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes. Whether you agree with it or want to believe it or not, times are changing, and you probably don't like it.

And of course the hippies** here can't understand such abstractions as 787.5 million dollars! It's all fake, right? That's just peanuts for Murdoch anyway!  Duh!

 

And now I read here some joe blow, in an article  say that the MIC just will never allow RFK Jr. to be President. I wish I had the quote. So through their MSM, they've seized on this RFK Jr. anti vaxxer thing, right?, Like that's completely insignificant, a non issue, just played up by the "deep state" and the MSM right?

And yet in the case of Trump, Carlson or Kennedy, you're actually saying the majority of people in each case, have also been hoodwinked by the "deep state" and the MSM, myself included,  because none of this could be the result of their political stands or their actions?

 

P.S- And so timely. I just posted this on another thread.

And finally I don't believe John Lenon's assassination was deep state hit! I also love John. But he lived in a bubble. He finally got political largely after it became passe. He died 10 years after "Working class hero" and if you lived through the 70's, you know everything changed. Hoover was dead. John could freely live and travel in the U.S. He was no longer any political threat and would go on Mike Douglas daytime TV with Yoko, present  awards at the Grammies.

The most controversial things he said in the last 5 years of his life were personal recollections, mostly about the Beatles.

 

* Pat, I'm sort of unsure of your term, random. I could see it as meaning "free will", that people are creating these realities and have to answer to their actions, and in every one of these 3 case it's not a conspiracy.  It's  the logical result of their actions  Trump, Carlson, or their unfavorable political stands,

 

 

** you see some old pictures of me, you would have thought me a hippie.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Kirk Gallaway

[John Cotter]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, the video you cite is proof of what I said. Of all the long-time conspiracy theorists, Thompson has by far the most credibility with the mainstream media, and documentary film-maker types like Errol Morris. He is also widely respected and appreciated by the vast majority of the research community--people in email chains who go to conventions, etc. Only the fringey Fetzer types dislike or distrust Tink. As we approached the 50th, Fetzer guaranteed this Forum that Tink would show his "true colors" and do a newspaper or TV interview admitting he'd been wrong all along, and that it was really just Oswald. But he was wrong, terribly wrong. Tink, of course, instead doubled-down and put out a follow-up to his ground-breaking Six Seconds in Dallas. 

Your deflection validates my argument.

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Your deflection validates my argument.

Oh my. My statement about Tink was that he was widely respected not that he was always right. Your response was essentially a non-sequitur. You pointed out that you disagreed with something he said and did and made out that therefore I was wrong and that he wasn't really respected. This makes no sense. I have been a part of the research community as it is for roughly 20 years now. You are not a member of that community. And you don't know Tink. So you are in no position to claim how much or how little respect there is for him within the community, and you haven't demonstrated the knowledge of the history of the case to comment on how respected he is outside the community. In fact, you demonstrated that Tink, unique to the JFK research community, has a public relationship with a prominent award-winning film-maker who isn't named Oliver Stone. So you actually suggested the exact opposite of what you were claiming. 

It would be like me claiming who you know to be the most respected fiddle player in Ireland is actually not respected, because I heard one song by him and thought it sucked. 

FYI, Tink wrote Six Seconds in Dallas, perhaps the most important book written on the JFK assassination. He was working for Life magazine--the most circulated and influential magazine in America--and helped push Life to call for a new investigation. He then went out on his own and wrote his book, which was nothing less than a bombshell. It was featured on the cover of prominent magazines, and pressured the Johnson Administration to create a secret panel to shut down the "junk" in his book. This led to one of the major twists in the history of the medical evidence. Years later, after a distinguished career as a philosophy professor, private eye, and author, he returned to the case, both online, at this and other forums, where he successfully dismantled many of the then popular arguments for Z-film alteration, and at conferences, where he updated his ideas about the case. 

As stated, he is one of the most respected men to write on the case, and appear at conferences. Most every researcher--from Wecht to Aguilar on down to people like myself and Matt Douthitt--thinks the world of the guy. He has discovered tons of stuff and his analysis is usually spot on. Like I said, it doesn't mean he is right about everything. But anyone who dismisses something he wrote without even reading it is probably making a mistake. 

 

 

 

[Matthew Koch]

48 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. My statement about Tink was that he was widely respected not that he was always right. Your response was essentially a non-sequitur. You pointed out that you disagreed with something he said and did and made out that therefore I was wrong and that he wasn't really respected. This makes no sense. I have been a part of the research community as it is for roughly 20 years now. You are not a member of that community. And you don't know Tink. So you are in no position to claim how much or how little respect there is for him within the community, and you haven't demonstrated the knowledge of the history of the case to comment on how respected he is outside the community. In fact, you demonstrated that Tink, unique to the JFK research community, has a public relationship with a prominent award-winning film-maker who isn't named Oliver Stone. So you actually suggested the exact opposite of what you were claiming. 

It would be like me claiming who you know to be the most respected fiddle player in Ireland is actually not respected, because I heard one song by him and thought it sucked. 

FYI, Tink wrote Six Seconds in Dallas, perhaps the most important book written on the JFK assassination. He was working for Life magazine--the most circulated and influential magazine in America--and helped push Life to call for a new investigation. He then went out on his own and wrote his book, which was nothing less than a bombshell. It was featured on the cover of prominent magazines, and pressured the Johnson Administration to create a secret panel to shut down the "junk" in his book. This led to one of the major twists in the history of the medical evidence. Years later, after a distinguished career as a philosophy professor, private eye, and author, he returned to the case, both online, at this and other forums, where he successfully dismantled many of the then popular arguments for Z-film alteration, and at conferences, where he updated his ideas about the case. 

As stated, he is one of the most respected men to write on the case, and appear at conferences. Most every researcher--from Wecht to Aguilar on down to people like myself and Matt Douthitt--thinks the world of the guy. He has discovered tons of stuff and his analysis is usually spot on. Like I said, it doesn't mean he is right about everything. But anyone who dismisses something he wrote without even reading it is probably making a mistake. 

Thompson believes that the dicta belt and sound analysis is valid and you don't, so I don't understand why his opinion on Building 7 matters? Like of course there's fires, lols.. or we would know it's a controlled demolition. 

The fascinating thing is that just like CE399 and the Zapruder film begin to unravel the JFKA. Building 7 and Molten Metal and explosions in the basements of WTC 1&2 pretty much begin to unravel 911 as another "Deep Event". 

It's not just a coincidence that PNAC writes a paper on that America needs a Pearl Harbor type event to happen for it to defend it's Strategic Resources abroad.. Those people get in power and then a Pearl Harbor like event happens! That allows America to (Drum Roll Please) defend its strategic resources abroad under the guise of the "War on Terror". 

If you look into the tenants of the WTC complex there are alot of intelligence connected companies that occupied the buildings and like around a Trillion Dollars in SEC stock fraud cases went down with Building 7. So, motive and opportunity are both there. The Hijackers got their passports at the came consulates that got fighters into Afghanistan to become the Mujahideen, a while blower came out and said that they denied the hijackers and were ordered from higher ups to let them in the country. From there the would be hijackers live around miliatary and intelligence targets and even live with FBI informants. Meanwhile a Israeli spy ring is going on and shadowing those very Hijackers who seem to link up with drug runners in Florida and Arizona Flight schools. Able Danger unit had info on the Narco/terror cells and tried to turn the info over to the FBI but FBI wouldn't take it because Saudis had special rights and they had to treat them with the same rule as American citizens. There were hearings before congress about this after 911 and the Pentagon Gaged the Unit similar to the people doing the autopsy on JFK and a book was published about it the Pentagon bought the books and shredded them. When you investigate 911 characters their histories they lead back to connections to other Deep Events like Iran Contra, BCCI Bank, OKC Bombing, Watergate, etc.. 

https://rumble.com/v2e4uqg-the-great-thermate-debate.html

https://rumble.com/v2g2t3a-ground-zero-months-later.html

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

9 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

As so often, Pat, the voice of reason. He leads the discussion in the right direction. I've just got a bit of a time lag. I'll address the 911 thing later.

 

 

 

Get a clue, Kirk.

Pat Speer has posted nothing but pseudo-scientific bunk on this thread.

You, Pat, and Michael Griffith need to study some basic physics and chemistry.

47-floor steel skyscrapers don't abruptly collapse to the ground in a symmetrical free fall from office fires. Period.

Also, try opening your eyes and observing the visible serial explosions that pulverized the Twin Towers.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Get a clue, Kirk.

Pat Speer has posted nothing but pseudo-scientific bunk on this thread.

You, Pat, and Michael Griffith need to study some basic physics and chemistry.

47-floor steel skyscrapers don't abruptly collapse to the ground in a symmetrical free fall from office fires. Period.

Also, try opening your eyes and observing the visible serial explosions that pulverized the Twin Towers.

I have done no such thing, my friend. I have no dog in this hunt. I merely pointed out that I thought the collapse of building 7 was suspicious as heck before reading a paper by someone for whom I had great respect, and wondered if anyone still holding such doubts had read that paper. It turns out they haven't. 

I have no idea if reading Tink's paper would sway you or anyone from your closely held views. But I found it convincing. I have admitted as well that it seemed particularly convincing because at the time the main alternative pushed on this forum and elsewhere was the nonsense being peddled by Fetzer and his scholars for truth group, i.e. that no planes struck the buildings, that a missile hit the Pentagon, that the planes seen hitting the towers were holograms, that the towers were brought down by space lasers, and building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. Most all this stuff was silly on its face, and supported by voodoo science, mostly scientists theorizing outside their field of expertise, but also actual experts pushing particular data points that Fetzer and his ilk would then combine into theories that were silly on its face. I had witnessed him do much the same with JFK research, where he would take his fervent belief it was Oswald in the Altgens photo, and combine that with the fact it's Lovelady's face in the photo, then propose the photo was altered to show Lovelady's face on Oswald's body, then combine that with the fact the Altgens photo was published within hours, to claim there was a CIA photo alteration trailer in the train yards where Altgens took his photos for alteration right after the shooting. 

In any event, Fetzer poisoned me on 9/11 research. I am content with the official story that a supposedly tough on national security Presidential administration was exposed as being hopelessly clueless and inefficient, and that some clever fellows were able to exploit that to their "advantage", and pull off a terrible deed.

I do find one element of this of continuing interest, which I hinted at earlier in the thread. I wonder if it's a coinkydink that so many questioning the 9/11 official story painted it as an inside job, and that this caused a bit of a backlash to where most said "No, of course it's not an inside job," and that this led to virtually everyone ignoring the implications of what history will tell you had happened--that an incompetent regime run by Bush/Cheney had been shamefully ill-prepared for a major attack, and had thoroughly botched the response to this attack. (We should recall that Bush's incompetent response to 9/11 sent him to record positive approval ratings, and that it was his similarly incompetent handling of Hurricane Katrina and the economy that brought them back to Earth.)

So...I sometimes wonder if it's a coincidence that some of the same people telling us the towers were brought down by space weapons, then began telling us the families of murdered children were crisis actors, hired to take away our guns. Both theories stood no chance of being accepted by the mainstream, and both theories effectively distracted the public from the larger issue, IMO, of the government in general and one party in particular's...failure to protect the nation from widespread incompetence and corruption. Just a thought...

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I have done no such thing, my friend. I have no dog in this hunt. I merely pointed out that I thought the collapse of building 7 was suspicious as heck before reading a paper by someone for whom I had great respect, and wondered if anyone still holding such doubts had read that paper. It turns out they haven't. 

I have no idea if reading Tink's paper would sway you or anyone from your closely held views. But I found it convincing. I have admitted as well that it seemed particularly convincing because at the time the main alternative pushed on this forum and elsewhere was the nonsense being peddled by Fetzer and his scholars for truth group, i.e. that no planes struck the buildings, that a missile hit the Pentagon, that the planes seen hitting the towers were holograms, that the towers were brought down by space lasers, and building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. Most all this stuff was silly on its face, and supported by voodoo science, mostly scientists theorizing outside their field of expertise, but also actual experts pushing particular data points that Fetzer and his ilk would then combine into theories that were silly on its face. I had witnessed him do much the same with JFK research, where he would take his fervent belief it was Oswald in the Altgens photo, and combine that with the fact it's Lovelady's face in the photo, then propose the photo was altered to show Lovelady's face on Oswald's body, then combine that with the fact the Altgens photo was published within hours, to claim there was a CIA photo alteration trailer in the train yards where Altgens took his photos for alteration right after the shooting. 

In any event, Fetzer poisoned me on 9/11 research. I am content with the official story that a supposedly tough on national security Presidential administration was exposed as being hopelessly clueless and inefficient, and that some clever fellows were able to exploit that to their "advantage", and pull off a terrible deed.

I do find one element of this of continuing interest, which I hinted at earlier in the thread. I wonder if it's a coinkydink that so many questioning the 9/11 official story painted it as an inside job, and that this caused a bit of a backlash to where most said "No, of course it's not an inside job," and that this led to virtually everyone ignoring the implications of what history will tell you had happened--that an incompetent regime run by Bush/Cheney had been shamefully ill-prepared for a major attack, and had thoroughly botched the response to this attack. (We should recall that Bush's incompetent response to 9/11 sent him to record positive approval ratings, and that it was his similarly incompetent handling of Hurricane Katrina and the economy that brought them back to Earth.)

So...I sometimes wonder if it's a coincidence that some of the same people telling us the towers were brought down by space weapons, then began telling us the families of murdered children were crisis actors, hired to take away our guns. Both theories stood no chance of being accepted by the mainstream, and both theories effectively distracted the public from the larger issue, IMO, of the government in general and one party in particular's...failure to protect the nation from their own incompetence and corruption. Just a thought...

 

Pat,

     It's far more insidious than a Bush/Cheney administrative "failure to protect." 

    Louis Freeh's FBI administration aggressively suppressed 2001 field reports about alleged Saudi "hijackers" taking flight lessons.  Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has written about this subject.

     Also, the CIA and U.S. military had successfully flown pilot-free Boeing jetliners with Raytheon's GPS remote-piloting technology during the summer of 2001.  They didn't need hijackers to precisely pilot Boeings into buildings.

     And FBI experts testified at the Moussaiou trial that Barbara Olson's famous phone calls from AA77 to Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson-- about Muslim hijackers with box cutters-- never happened.  Fox News commentator Barbara Olson never called Ted Olson from AA77.

     There are numerous other 9/11 smoking guns.

     And there are also a lot of propagandists in the M$M and on the internet who have spent the past 20 years relentlessly telling Americans that the 9/11 smoking guns aren't guns, and aren't smoking. 

      It's like something out of George Orwell's 1984-- mass delusions engendered by state propaganda narratives.

      Someone pointed out a few years ago that fewer than 5% of the U.S. public even knew that a third skyscraper-- WTC7-- had collapsed into its own footprint in a symmetrical free fall on 9/11.

  

      I could post a lot of strange facts about WTC7, aside from the fact that it was an obvious expert demolition.

1)  An international demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, was shown film of the WTC7 collapse, and he said that it was an obvious, expert, explosive demolition.  He subsequently died in a mysterious car accident.

2)  A BBC commentator announced on television on 9/11 that WTC7 had collapsed-- before the building actually collapsed on live television behind her.

3)  When asked about the collapse of WTC7, Donald Rumsfeld said that he had "never heard of WTC7."  But WTC7 was the headquarters of Smith Barney when Rumsfeld was Chairman of the Board of Smith Barney.

4)  Larry Silverstein, apparently, had architectural plans for a new WTC7 building before 9/11.

   

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I have done no such thing, my friend. I have no dog in this hunt. I merely pointed out that I thought the collapse of building 7 was suspicious as heck before reading a paper by someone for whom I had great respect, and wondered if anyone still holding such doubts had read that paper. It turns out they haven't. 

I have no idea if reading Tink's paper would sway you or anyone from your closely held views. But I found it convincing. I have admitted as well that it seemed particularly convincing because at the time the main alternative pushed on this forum and elsewhere was the nonsense being peddled by Fetzer and his scholars for truth group, i.e. that no planes struck the buildings, that a missile hit the Pentagon, that the planes seen hitting the towers were holograms, that the towers were brought down by space lasers, and building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. Most all this stuff was silly on its face, and supported by voodoo science, mostly scientists theorizing outside their field of expertise, but also actual experts pushing particular data points that Fetzer and his ilk would then combine into theories that were silly on its face. I had witnessed him do much the same with JFK research, where he would take his fervent belief it was Oswald in the Altgens photo, and combine that with the fact it's Lovelady's face in the photo, then propose the photo was altered to show Lovelady's face on Oswald's body, then combine that with the fact the Altgens photo was published within hours, to claim there was a CIA photo alteration trailer in the train yards where Altgens took his photos for alteration right after the shooting. 

In any event, Fetzer poisoned me on 9/11 research. I am content with the official story that a supposedly tough on national security Presidential administration was exposed as being hopelessly clueless and inefficient, and that some clever fellows were able to exploit that to their "advantage", and pull off a terrible deed.

I do find one element of this of continuing interest, which I hinted at earlier in the thread. I wonder if it's a coinkydink that so many questioning the 9/11 official story painted it as an inside job, and that this caused a bit of a backlash to where most said "No, of course it's not an inside job," and that this led to virtually everyone ignoring the implications of what history will tell you had happened--that an incompetent regime run by Bush/Cheney had been shamefully ill-prepared for a major attack, and had thoroughly botched the response to this attack. (We should recall that Bush's incompetent response to 9/11 sent him to record positive approval ratings, and that it was his similarly incompetent handling of Hurricane Katrina and the economy that brought them back to Earth.)

So...I sometimes wonder if it's a coincidence that some of the same people telling us the towers were brought down by space weapons, then began telling us the families of murdered children were crisis actors, hired to take away our guns. Both theories stood no chance of being accepted by the mainstream, and both theories effectively distracted the public from the larger issue, IMO, of the government in general and one party in particular's...failure to protect the nation from their own incompetence and corruption. Just a thought...

 

Exactly Pat. I think Fetzer is a deep state government agent. Not only are fake conspiracy theories designed to mix them with real ones in the same basket in order to dismiss all of them, but in Fetzer’s case they go even further, purposely turning absolute tragedy into farce, siphoning off the most gullible citizens (fake moon landings was his first, flat earth theories of the same ilk) tearing a small hole in the fabric of reality. This goes further than mere distraction. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Paul Brancato