Cognitive Infiltration

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

 

 

   

Alright. You answered my question. You never read Tink's paper, nor I would assume any paper which offered a credible explanation for what happened. What I find fascinating is that people think it's more dangerous and daring to think it was an inside job, etc. 

It Is far worse for big gov to be exposed as incompetent and stupid than it it is for it to be exposed as evil. 

The "official" story of 9/11 includes so many screw-ups by so many people who would never readily admit to screwing up that it reeks of the truth, IMO. As I recall, Dick Cheney scrambled the jets in the wrong direction, and left D.C. totally open to an attack from United 93. And this after Dubya sat reading a book upside down for what? seven minutes! while the nation was under attack. if they were in on it and this was all scripted they should have fired the script writer. 

And don't even bring up the intelligence agencies. if they were in on it then it totally backfired didn't it? None of them would have wanted a new department (DHS) to rise up and overshadow them. 

There's also this. IF it was an inside job--designed to give cover for Bush and his cronies to enact PNAC, they damn sure would have made sure there was an actual verifiable link of OBL to Saddam, and they damn sure would have made sure nukes would be found in Iraq after the invasion. 

The truth is much more horrible. Rather than evil masterminds, Bush/Cheney et al were screw-ups--one step up from circus clowns--with their fingers on the button. I mean, look how Bush went out--in the midst of a recession/near depression that badly cost his party and could have been avoided if he'd cooked up another war. That he didn't is to his credit, of course, but also strongly suggestive that his invasion of Iraq was an opportunity that fell into his lap as opposed to something planned out even before 9/11.

(FWIW, I had a close friend in special ops who told me in December 01 that the plan was to go into Iraq, and take out Saddam, and pretty much hold the line in Afghanistan. This was a year before such discussion reached the media. Well, this led me to believe these plans were drummed up after 9/11, and not before. If 9/11 was part of a plot to justify an invasion into Iraq, they would have pretended from the outset that Iraq had something to do with it, right? And, having said as much, they wouldn't have to have held off the invasion for a year and a half, and to have dragged other countries into it. They would have just charged in, the way they did in Afghanistan, and claimed it as a defensive action. My two cents.)

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Guest]

It may also be worth seriously considering how ‘demoralised’ society is. Yuri explains here:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CraNpHovUJl/?igshid=ZWIzMWE5ZmU3Zg==

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Alright. You answered my question. You never read Tink's paper, nor I would assume any paper which offered a credible explanation for what happened.

 

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.

   

     

[Benjamin Cole]

The reading audience of EF-JFKA is too small for anyone to bother with. 

It would not surprise if someone in the expansive intel community monitored the site, especially as the CIA gets the heebie-jeebies about the topic. 

The EF-JFKA community should also welcome new participants with open arms, and take pains to avoid acrimony and feculent invectives. 

Maybe we can expand readership. Across the political spectrum. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The reading audience of EF-JFKA is too small for anyone to bother with. 

It would not surprise if someone in the expansive intel community monitored the site, especially as the CIA gets the heebie-jeebies about the topic. 

The EF-JFKA community should also welcome new participants with open arms, and take pains to avoid acrimony and feculent invectives. 

Maybe we can expand readership. Across the political spectrum. 

Ben,

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

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

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

If you are considerate and civil when you post what you think are the facts and truth, that is fine. 

Other people, also intelligent and well-informed, may have different views on what are the facts and truth. 

The art of disagreement is first not to be disagreeable. 

 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

42 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If you are considerate and civil when you post what you think are the facts and truth, that is fine. 

Other people, also intelligent and well-informed, may have different views on what are the facts and truth. 

The art of disagreement is first not to be disagreeable. 

 

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?

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

15 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

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?

 

I advise everyone in the EF-JFKA to be civil, and especially so to newcomers. 

Including myself. 

I do not imagine truth to be totally subjective.

However, I have seen highly intelligent people on opposite sides of many hardcore scientific and forensic debates. The true origins of C19 are but a recent example. 

Bullets struck JFK from which direction is another example. 

Keep an open mind and rest easy. 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

24 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I advise everyone in the EF-JFKA to be civil, and especially so to newcomers. 

Including myself. 

I do not imagine truth to be totally subjective.

However, I have seen highly intelligent people on opposite sides of many hardcore scientific and forensic debates. The true origins of C19 are but a recent example. 

Bullets struck JFK from which direction is another example. 

Keep an open mind and rest easy. 

 

 

 

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.

Edited April 28, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Anthony Thorne]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It Is far worse for big gov to be exposed as incompetent and stupid than it it is for it to be exposed as evil.

 

Huh?

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Huh?

 

This is something Larry Hancock and I have discussed in the past. It is actually an old concept. 

When it comes to social order, the greatest fear is chaos. It's the greatest fear for both the haves and the have-nots. As a result people prefer to believe that "someone" is in charge--even if that "someone" is evil--than that no one is in charge, and it's just chaos. 

This is obvious, moreover, when you talk to people from all walks of life. 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. 

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 mean, look at Tucker Carlson. His popularity was based in large part on his embrace of the "Great Replacement" theory, or whatever it is called. This theory attributes a malevolence to the shifting demographics everyone has known about for forty years. Instead of reaching out to hispanic, black, and Asian Americans, to increase those voting Republican, Carlson and his ilk have opted to tell his viewers/followers that the growing numbers of hispanic, black and Asian voters is part of a plot by Democrats (which he and his ilk often imply are Jews) to take total control of the country. He and his ilk then use this as a scare tactic, with the ultimate goal of suppressing the vote when and where needed, so that an ever-shrinking white Christian population can hold onto power for the foreseeable future. 

This is a classic example of what I've been trying to describe: the psychological need to scapegoat a "they" for something that has been discussed for decades. Rather than accept the facts--that demographics are shifting and there isn't much they can do about it, Tucker and his followers choose to believe it's all a conspiracy set up by evil libtards. IOW, it's easier for them to believe the government (or at least the Democrats in the government) are evil than that demographics shift and the white population is shrinking...as a result of its own behavior.. 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Have you read Tink's paper on this? if not, then you should. A lot of what we were told to make us doubt the building could collapse on its own was smoke and mirrors. 

Another point brought up repeatedly on this forum and elsewhere was the bit about the melting point of the welds within the twin towers. It turned out that was nonsense, and that the burning temp of rocket fuel was much higher than the melting point of the welds holding the buildings together. if I recall, there was a proposed lawsuit about this, as the welds were not as strong as they were supposed to have been. 

Oh, thank goodness! Based on your reply to me, I feared you were another 9/11 Truther. 

I've refrained from discussing the details of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, but I'll make this one exception.

It wasn't just the heat from the Jet A fuel that weakened the welds but also the intense heat from the numerous fires that erupted inside the Twin Towers soon after the jetliners smashed into them. There were numerous highly flammable objects inside the buildings. For example, every floor of the Twin Towers had two large A/C units on it. There were also dozens of refrigerators in the Twin Towers. A/C units and fridges contain freon. Freon will ignite and explode when exposed to heat. As the fires spread after the initial fireballs, the numerous flammable objects caught fire, and some of them exploded. This is why explosions from inside the buildings were heard.

Witnesses who escaped the buildings also reported seeing large cracks develop on the walls of the staircases, indicating that a steady redistribution of vertical forces and propagation of structural failure downward in the buildings had already begun to occur while the witnesses began descending on the staircases. 

As for WTC 7, it contained large fuel tanks for generators. These tanks contained over 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel combined. As the Twin Towers collapsed, large pieces of them smashed into parts of WTC 7 and set areas of WTC 7's floors ablaze. These fires eventually reached the fuel tanks and set them off, causing large explosions and intense heat that did severe structural damage. 

Again, the reasons for the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 have been explained by numerous experts and to the satisfaction of 99% of the educated population. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Paul Rigby]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

As for WTC 7, it contained large fuel tanks for generators. These tanks contained over 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel combined. As the Twin Towers collapsed, large pieces of them smashed into parts of WTC 7 and set areas of WTC 7's floors ablaze. These fires eventually reached the fuel tanks and set them off, causing large explosions and intense heat that did severe structural damage. 

Again, the reasons for the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 have been explained by numerous experts and to the satisfaction of 99% of the educated population. 

If this were true, there would have been no need for NIST to lie about an important component of the construction of WTC7.  Yet lie NIST did:

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Oh, thank goodness! Based on your reply to me, I feared you were another 9/11 Truther. 

I've refrained from discussing the details of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, but I'll make this one exception.

It wasn't just the heat from the Jet A fuel that weakened the welds but also the intense heat from the numerous fires that erupted inside the Twin Towers soon after the jetliners smashed into them. There were numerous highly flammable objects inside the buildings. For example, every floor of the Twin Towers had two large A/C units on it. There were also dozens of refrigerators in the Twin Towers. A/C units and fridges contain freon. Freon will ignite and explode when exposed to heat. As the fires spread after the initial fireballs, the numerous flammable objects caught fire, and some of them exploded. This is why explosions from inside the buildings were heard.

Witnesses who escaped the buildings also reported seeing large cracks develop on the walls of the staircases, indicating that a steady redistribution of vertical forces and propagation of structural failure downward in the buildings had already begun to occur while the witnesses began descending on the staircases. 

As for WTC 7, it contained large fuel tanks for generators. These tanks contained over 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel combined. As the Twin Towers collapsed, large pieces of them smashed into parts of WTC 7 and set areas of WTC 7's floors ablaze. These fires eventually reached the fuel tanks and set them off, causing large explosions and intense heat that did severe structural damage. 

Again, the reasons for the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 have been explained by numerous experts and to the satisfaction of 99% of the educated population. 

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.

Edited April 28, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Griffith]

2 minutes ago, Paul Rigby said:

If this were true, there would have been no need for NIST to lie about an important component of the construction of WTC7.  Yet lie NIST did:

 

This is pseudoscience. Read the other side and you'll find there was nothing suspicious about WTC 7's collapse. I realize that in your echo-chamber far-left world, this nonsense is taken seriously, but just be advised that 99% of the educated population rejects this garbage and believes the official version of 9/11 is factual and rational.

Here are some links on WTC 7:

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation | NIST

The Collapse of WT 7 - Canadian Consulting Engineer

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Rare footage shows WTC 7 consumed by fire | Daily Mail Online

No, the Owner of WTC Building 7 Didn't 'Admit' It Was Demolished After 9/11 | Snopes.com

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia

9/11 Conspiracy Theory Debunking | World Trade Center Myths (popularmechanics.com)

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest (popularmechanics.com)

Sheesh, just how many 9/11 Truthers do we have infesting this forum? I'm just curious: How many 9/11 Truthers also reject "the official narrative" regarding the Moon landings and the Holocaust?