Cognitive Infiltration

[W. Niederhut]

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.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

Oh my. As stated, all this stuff was discussed in great detail 15 years or so ago, most tellingly between Tink Thompson (Josiah Thompson, probably the most widely-respected JFK assassination researcher, a former professor of philosophy, and a long-time private detective) and James Fetzer (a subsequently disgraced professor of critical thinking, who thought of himself as the leading light of both JFK assassination research and 9/11 research, whose founding of the group Scholars for Truth offered a false veneer of expertise to 9/11 research, when in fact most of these experts were theorizing outside their actual areas of expertise.)

NOTE: this was the same stunt Fetzer pulled in the JFK assassination research community, whereby he pretended a radiation oncologist and an eye surgeon had more credibility than the numerous forensic pathologists to look into the case.  While I whole-heartedly agreed with his premise--that "experts" can be wrong, Fetzer's replacing them with his own "experts" who had much weaker credentials and then pretending "his" "experts" were real experts when the other ones were not, was just pathetic, IMO. In any event, I remember that Fetzer cited some scientist with a background in agriculture as proof the towers could only be brought down by laser beams from space, etc, and then claimed this as a fact based on this person's background--as if having a few letters after your name excused you from idiocy. 

[W. Niederhut]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. As stated, all this stuff was discussed in great detail 15 years or so ago, most tellingly between Tink Thompson (Josiah Thompson, probably the most widely-respected JFK assassination researcher, a former professor of philosophy, and a long-time private detective) and James Fetzer (a subsequently disgraced professor of critical thinking, who thought of himself as the leading light of both JFK assassination research and 9/11 research, whose founding of the group Scholars for Truth offered a false veneer of expertise to 9/11 research, when in fact most of these experts were theorizing outside their actual areas of expertise.)

NOTE: this was the same stunt Fetzer pulled in the JFK assassination research community, whereby he pretended a radiation oncologist and an eye surgeon had more credibility than the numerous forensic pathologists to look into the case.  While I whole-heartedly agreed with his premise--that "experts" can be wrong, Fetzer's replacing them with his own "experts" who had much weaker credentials and then pretending "his" "experts" were real experts when the other ones were not, was just pathetic, IMO. In any event, I remember that Fetzer cited some scientist with a background in agriculture as proof the towers could only be brought down by laser beams from space, etc, and then claimed this as a fact based on this person's background--as if having a few letters after your name excused you from idiocy. 

It's no stunt, Pat.

Study the WTC film and the chemistry and physics data of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Frankly, there's no need to bring your extraneous dialogue about Fetzer, et.al., into the discussion of the scientific facts about the obvious explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

It only muddies the water, which is precisely what the zelikows want.

[Matthew Koch]

Luckily our resident Vietnam Revisionist shared a Snopes link, I checked out what they said about the JFK Assassination and Snopes says we've been waisting our time there's no JFK conspiracy, LOLS, I guess we can all pack it up and stop coming to this website..now https://www.snopes.com/second-shooter/

 

 

[Pat Speer]

35 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Luckily our resident Vietnam Revisionist shared a Snopes link, I checked out what they said about the JFK Assassination and Snopes says we've been waisting our time there's no JFK conspiracy, LOLS, I guess we can all pack it up and stop coming to this website..now https://www.snopes.com/second-shooter/

 

 

Wait. That link passes no judgement on the JFK case. It merely says the term "second shooter" derived from the JFK case, and that it is now used by those claiming school shootings are part of some grand design to take away our gun rights, or some such thing. Was there something else you read on snopes that led you to believe it had taken to claiming--as fact-there was no second shooter in the JFK case? 

Here is what I saw at the link:

"Second shooter" is a conspiracy term that gained prominence after the November 1963 assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

"Second shooter" is a conspiracy term that gained prominence after the November 1963 assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. It reflected wide public disbelief in Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone plotter and shooter in the Kennedy assassination and posited a wider conspiracy involving other groups (e.g., the CIA, the mafia, Cubans), as evidenced by the supposed presence of a "second shooter" in addition to Oswald, typically said to have been positioned around the grassy knoll in Dallas' Dealey Plaza.

More recently, the term has been used in conjunction with mass shooting events taking place in public spaces such as malls and schools, as a means of casting doubt on "official" accounts of those event. The alleged participation or one or more perpetrators beyond the suspect(s) identified by police is typically claimed as evidence that such shootings are staged "false flag" events employing "crisis actors" pretending to be aggrieved survivors and are plotted to provide cover for some furtive motive (e.g., to make the public more receptive to stronger gun control measures).

Edited April 28, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

99% of the scientists who've examined the evidence agree with me. You're the one peddling pseudoscience. 

Leaving aside the scientific debunking of the 9/11 Truther claims, logic alone screams against them. It makes no sense whatsoever that any American plotters would have felt the need to blow up the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Nobody in their right mind would have thought that the American people needed more reasons to be infuriated over the 9/11 attacks. No rational person would have thought, "Gee, if we don't blow up those buildings, the American people won't be enraged enough to support a massive military response." 

I ask you seriously, not sarcastically, Do you believe that the official narratives about the Moon landings and the Holocaust are false? Do you believe the Moon landings were faked? Do you believe the Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated or did not happen? 

Again, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm asking in all sincerity because people whose reasoning skills lead them to believe the 9/11 Truther claims are liable to also reject the official narratives about the Moon landings and the Holocaust. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

36 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

99% of the scientists who've examined the evidence agree with me. You're the one peddling pseudoscience. 

Leaving aside the scientific debunking of the 9/11 Truther claims, logic alone screams against them. It makes no sense whatsoever that any American plotters would have felt the need to blow up the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Nobody in their right mind would have thought that the American people needed more reasons to be infuriated over the 9/11 attacks. No rational person would have thought, "Gee, if we don't blow up those buildings, the American people won't be enraged enough to support a massive military response." 

I ask you seriously, not sarcastically, Do you believe that the official narratives about the Moon landings and the Holocaust are false? Do you believe the Moon landings were faked? Do you believe the Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated or did not happen? 

Again, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm asking in all sincerity because people whose reasoning skills lead them to believe the 9/11 Truther claims are liable to also reject the official narratives about the Moon landings and the Holocaust. 

More bunk.

Post a reference for your ridiculous claim that "scientists" have "debunked" the scientific data of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth proving that WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 were explosively demolished.

It doesn't exist.

It's like claiming that scientists have debunked the claims of researchers who have proven that the fatal JFK bullet was fired from in front of the limo.

Meanwhile, people can simply look at the 9/11 film and see the serial explosions that pulverized the Twin Towers.

And people can get stop watches and graph the free fall accelerations.

It was a "Shock & Awe" operation-- a "New Pearl Harbor"-- to terrorize the American people into supporting the Bush & Cheney wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

 

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Wait. That link passes no judgement on the JFK case. It merely says the term "second shooter" derived from the JFK case, and that it is now used by those claiming school shootings are part of some grand design to take away our gun rights, or some such thing. Was there something else you read on snopes that led you to believe it had taken to claiming--as fact-there was no second shooter in the JFK case? 

Here is what I saw at the link:

"Second shooter" is a conspiracy term that gained prominence after the November 1963 assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

"Second shooter" is a conspiracy term that gained prominence after the November 1963 assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. It reflected wide public disbelief in Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone plotter and shooter in the Kennedy assassination and posited a wider conspiracy involving other groups (e.g., the CIA, the mafia, Cubans), as evidenced by the supposed presence of a "second shooter" in addition to Oswald, typically said to have been positioned around the grassy knoll in Dallas' Dealey Plaza.

More recently, the term has been used in conjunction with mass shooting events taking place in public spaces such as malls and schools, as a means of casting doubt on "official" accounts of those event. The alleged participation or one or more perpetrators beyond the suspect(s) identified by police is typically claimed as evidence that such shootings are staged "false flag" events employing "crisis actors" pretending to be aggrieved survivors and are plotted to provide cover for some furtive motive (e.g., to make the public more receptive to stronger gun control measures).

Sorry I have to explain this further but Snopes is an anti conspiracy debunker website so they're implying it isn't real, but thanks for sharing your analysis Pat, almost as insightful as your 911 info I guess like @Michael Griffith you need somone to think for you and to tell you what the info means, lol. 

 

37 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

99% of the scientists who've examined the evidence agree with me. You're the one peddling pseudoscience.  

Doesn't list one scientist, lol and yet can't explain why there is molten metal at the World Trade Center. The fact that you are posting the Holocaust and the Moon landing shows that your just another NPC  that can't understand that the WTC was full of intelligence linked companies https://rumble.com/v2f4cwm-911-explosive-connections.html

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

I think Matthew was saying that moon landing hoax believers and holocaust deniers should not be tied in with 9/11 truthers, because they damage the credibility of the truther movement. Is that correct, Matthew? . 

Michael Griffith has used this defamatory propaganda technique more than once-- falsely claiming that scientists and engineers studying the 9/11 WTC demolitions are similar to Moon Landing conspiracy theorists or Holocaust Deniers.

It's bunk.

We all know that some "conspiracy theories" are kooky and some are accurate theories about facts.

Conspiracy theories aren't monolithic.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

Sorry I have to explain this further but Snopes is an anti conspiracy debunker website so they're implying it isn't real, but thanks for sharing your analysis Pat, almost as insightful as your 911 info I guess like @Michael Griffith you need somone to think for you and to tell you what the info means, lol. 

 

Doesn't list one scientist, lol and yet can't explain why there is molten metal at the World Trade Center. The fact that you are posting the Holocaust and the Moon landing shows that your just another NPC  that can't understand that the WTC was full of intelligence linked companies https://rumble.com/v2f4cwm-911-explosive-connections.html

 

Snopes debunks all kinds of nonsense. It's very helpful when your aunt sends you an email saying John Kerry is a communist, or some other nonsense. I am not aware of its dipping its toes in the JFK assassination and the link you posted acknowledged that many people suspect there was more than one shooter. 

As far as 9/11, the back pages of this forum are filled with probably 100 threads and several thousand pages on this topic. While I followed the topic I rarely participated. It was clear from these threads that most of the "science" supporting a controlled demolition or laser beam etc was junk science. 

When looking up William's preferred experts, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I saw that they have no ties with Fetzer--the main proponent of a 9/11 conspiracy on this forum--and that Fetzer has actually written articles about how wrong they are. So, perhaps there is something to what they are saying. I mean, if Fetzer says they are wrong they could very well be right about a few things.

In any event, if you think I need someone to think for me you haven't been paying attention. I have blazed a unique trail in JFK research, to the extent that both CTs and LNs will acknowledge my discoveries. I have also called out bs on both sides, and have chapters exposing deception and fraud on both sides on my website. 

As far as 9/11, I had no stake in it but strongly suspected the collapse of building 7 was a controlled demolition. Tink Thompson convinced me otherwise. 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Michael Griffith has used this defamatory propaganda technique more than once-- falsely claiming that scientists and engineers studying the 9/11 WTC demolitions are similar to Moon Landing conspiracy theorists or Holocaust Deniers.

It's bunk.

We all know that some "conspiracy theories" are kooky and some are accurate theories about facts.

Conspiracy theories aren't monolithic.

FWIW, through the efforts of the aforementioned James Fetzer, and his colleague Jack White, the early discussion of 9/11 on this forum was indeed linked to the Moon Landing hoax, and the dancing Israelis bit pushed by Fetzer danced along the brim of holocaust denial. (David Lifton denounced him over this, and Fetzer essentially called him a greedy Jew in return.) 

Discussion of 9/11 on this website has been forever stained by such stuff. If you want to discuss it in detail, perhaps you should take it to the political conspiracies section. 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/27/2023 at 1:01 PM, Michael Griffith said:

Every time you and others get on this forum and defend whacky theories such as the 9/11 Truther nuttiness, you discredit this forum as a place for serious discussion on the JFK assassination. Such garbage has no business appearing in a forum on the JFK case. It has nothing to do with the case. 

There is something wrong when people who advocate fringe theories don't care that 99% of the experts who have examined those theories reject them as not just wrong but also as bizarre and ridiculous. 

JFKA conspiracy theorists who also peddle 9/11 Truther claims are a dream come true for lone-gunman theorists. If I were the CIA and wanted to discredit this forum, I would pay people to do exactly what you are doing. 

 

 

Well said.  You and I can agree on this.

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, through the efforts of the aforementioned James Fetzer, and his colleague Jack White, the early discussion of 9/11 on this forum was indeed linked to the Moon Landing hoax, and the dancing Israelis bit pushed by Fetzer danced along the brim of holocaust denial. (David Lifton denounced him over this, and Fetzer essentially called him a greedy Jew in return.) 

Discussion of 9/11 on this website has been forever stained by such stuff. If you want to discuss it in detail, perhaps you should take it to the political conspiracies section. 

Pat,

    There's nothing inaccurate about the story of the five "dancing" Israelis arrested near Giants Stadium in Rutherford, N.J. on 9/11 after witnesses saw them filming and celebrating the WTC demolitions near Liberty State Park and called the police.  It happened.

Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ... | HeraldScotland

    The five young men were arrested on 9/11 and imprisoned by the FBI for 70 days, before being released to Israel. 

    The five later appeared on Israeli television and told the audience that they were in New Jersey on the morning of 9/11 to "document the event."  The FBI later released some of their film-- after an FOIA filing-- showing the young men holding up cigarette lighters and celebrating the demolitions of the Twin Towers.

    They were, apparently, working prior to 9/11 for an Israeli citizen named Dominick Suter at a company in Weehawken, N.J. called Urban Moving Systems.  Suter fled to Israel after his five employees were arrested on 9/11, before he could be questioned by the FBI.

     

Edited April 28, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Anthony Thorne]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

TBH that feels like a convoluted leap from your original statement, which was that it was worse for big gov to be exposed as incompetent and stupid, rather than it being exposed as evil. This is fine but that's just how it comes across to me.

Governments can be incompetent and stupid, and still in charge. Go read the Guardian UK and see how many articles you find by Marina Hyde and John Crace arguing that the government is incompetent and stupid. Now also take a moment to reflect if the UK government in charge of running the country is actually in charge. I think you'll find that the government there is simultaneously incompetent, stupid, and in charge.

Likewise in the US Jon Stewart spent years deriding the Bush administration as being incompetent and stupid. You'd be hard pressed to find an episode of the show that didn't do this. Yet, for all those years, the Bush administration was still in charge. They were even able to start a couple of wars while they were in power, something they would have found hard to do if they weren't in charge. Yet they did it. So it seems fairly certain they were in charge at the time, yet they were also in many ways incompetent and stupid. So again you have a situation where a government is able to be incompetent, stupid, and also in charge. 

Exposing a government as being both incompetent, and stupid, doesn't really explain to me how it would necessarily indicate that they also weren't in charge, as I think it's possible for a government to be both. Even more to the point, it doesn't give me a lot of insight into why a government being exposed as incompetent and stupid would be worse than it being exposed as evil. The Daily Show exposed the Bush administration as incompetent and stupid. Marina Hyde and John Crace's articles for the Guardian UK display that government as being incompetent and stupid. People who watched Stewart's show, or who read those articles, usually just laughed. Again, I'm not sure how either of those things being exposed would be worse for those governments at that time as being exposed as evil.

It's taken a long time for all the Operation Condor documents we have to come out, and we're still waiting on more. Many of them seem to expose government activities of that time as being evil. Meanwhile, Jon Stewart was allowed to broadcast his show for years, and people from the government often went on his show. His show exposed those people as being incompetent and stupid, whereas the Condor documents exposed sections of government as behaving in an evil way. None of the members of government seemed particularly bothered that they were being exposed as incompetent and stupid, but they do seem to take offence at being portrayed as evil. So how is the government being exposed as incompetent and stupid, worse for them than being exposed as evil again? Because they don't seem that bothered about being exposed as incompetent and stupid, and they seem more unhappy about being exposed as evil. You'd think they'd have an idea about which of the two was worse for them, unless you and Larry figured out something in your discussion that they couldn't get their heads around across multiple decades. Maybe you did.

Michael, you sometimes seem to chuck links in at random. The 'footage that kills conspiracy theories' link, showing a fire at the WTC7 building, has appeared in pretty much every Truther documentary, mainly because the people who made those particular documentaries felt it was possible for a building to both be on fire, and also to potentially be brought down at some point by explosives. But if you think it's not possible for a building to have a fire on a few floors, and also for it to be brought down by explosives while it was simultaneously on fire, I'd be happy to hear your explanation as to why. I've never heard a reason, but you might have one.

One of the more useful sites with 9/11 info is Joel Van der Reijden's website here.

https://isgp-studies.com/about

And he actually agrees with Michael and Pat (as do I) that the 9/11 truth movement has been heavily infested with kooks and cranks. If Michael wanted to selectively browse Joel's site and just cherry pick the pages where Joel documents dumb, misleading things many of the 9/11 truthers have said, he'd likely be able to dig up a lot of useful info for use in future threads like this one.

The WTC page on that site is here

https://isgp-studies.com/911-wtc-7-collapse-nist-failure-to-disprove-controlled-demolition-thermate

and he links a number of papers from engineer Tony Szamboti, including a 20 page discussion of 'NIST manipulations' here.

https://isgp-studies.com/miscellaneous/911/more/Tony-Szamboti-white-paper-25-points-2014-NIST-WTC-911-truth.pdf

Playing Devils Advocate a little bit because I'm up early this weekend and bored so the above almost certainly features a less nuanced summary of Pat's more nuanced original point. To Mike's point though, it seems that a sizeable number of JFK researchers are 9/11 truthers, such as Joan Mellen

http://joanmellen.com/wordpress/kennedy-assassination/911-and-1122/

and Peter Dale Scott, with many books and articles, and Jim Marrs. I think there are several others.

 

 

[Anthony Thorne]

Just on Fetzer, it's always seemed that his M.O was to discredit credible areas of research by polluting it in the way that Pat described above - linking it to doubts about the moon landings, Holocaust denial, and potentially sightings of Bigfoot if he could. If that wasn't doable, he'd try to boil the discussion down to science, and only the science, as that would restrict the discussion another way - much as if someone had persuaded John Newman to spend a decade only looking at the ballistics evidence from the morning of JFK's murder in Dealey Plaza. It'd ultimately tell you much about that 1% of the story, and zero about the rest of it, so the same goal would be achieved - derailing or curtailing discussion of the bigger picture.