Cognitive Infiltration

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

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.

As stated, I was relieved to see that the experts cited by William are now on Fetzer's poop list. Evidently, Fetzer has now come to believe the thermite theory doesn't hold, and is instead pushing that mini-nuclear devices were installed inside the towers to bring them down. He no doubt has "science" and "scientists" who will back this up. 

Arrgghhh!!!

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

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.

 

 

To build upon your point...Ive found that people do indeed think the government and government employees stupid--at a low level. People are happy it seems assuming the people at the post office or IRS office, or any government office for that matter, are idiots. But these same people will often project onto the intelligence agencies some incredible abilities--including the ability to conspire in super-secret, super-complex and super-nefarious tasks without anyone knowing. I worked in the record business for a company that collapsed in a blizzard of illegal activity. As a consequence, I spent hours in the company of IRS special investigators (the untouchables) and was even interrogated for 3-4 hours in an FBI office without any windows. And guess what? They weren't all that bright. I was totally unimpressed. 

[David G. Healy]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

[...]

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. 

I presume your angst against Fetzer is the popularity he garnered, especially the amount of books the guy had published up to that point including the Assassination Science Series, sounds much like jealously to this old salt...

I take some offense to the characterization of your term "...his own 'experts'...". In particular, I, being one of those "experts"... whom spent an entire career in the production, post production film/video composing-editing business... tell us, how many records/cd's do you have to produce in order to become a certified JFK assassination researcher/medical evidence expert, facilitator...? Lest you forget Mantik is ALSO a Ph.D, in Physics as well as that pesky old M.D. in Radiation-Oncology.. I suspect D. Mantik has announced death sentences based on X-rays, Scans, Pet Scans and Mri's for years, its not a pleasant field, I know, I own two of those sentences... he has no obvious reason lie, over-blow or exploit associated assassination evidence and its case evidence... I'm sure the concept of "do no harm" has not escaped him...

To bad the same 'do no harm' concept is alien right here on this 'forum', to quote you "PATHETIC" comes to mind...

[Paul Bacon]

Am I understanding correctly that the World Trade Centers were brought down by exploding refrigerators?!    I'm stunned! This is surely a major breakthrough.

A minor, possibly unrelated, point though:  freon is not flammable.  Just sayin'...

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

You snipped my questions and did not answer them. Let me ask you again:

Do you believe the Moon landings were faked? 

Do you believe the Holocaust happened?

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You snipped my questions and did not answer them. Let me ask you again:

Do you believe the Moon landings were faked? 

Do you believe the Holocaust happened?

 

No. 

Yes.

My father's battalion (the U.S. 753rd Tank Battalion) helped to liberate the N-a-z-i concentration camp at Lohr, Germany in 1945.

What do the Moon landing and Holocaust denial conspiracy theories have to do with the JFKA and 9/11 research?

Explain.

Is this related to your exploding refrigerator theory about the Twin Tower demolitions?

Edited April 29, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Anthony Thorne]

On 4/29/2023 at 9:43 AM, Pat Speer said:

But these same people will often project onto the intelligence agencies some incredible abilities--including the ability to conspire in super-secret, super-complex and super-nefarious tasks

I'm sure they can do all those things.

On 4/29/2023 at 9:43 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

without anyone knowing.

I'm sure if 50 or 100 or 150 people were involved in a complex task, conspiracy, crime, project or initiative, those people, and other people that worked for them, would all know about it. So I'm not sure where 'without anyone knowing' comes into it TBH.

[Pat Speer]

On 4/28/2023 at 7:11 PM, David G. Healy said:

I presume your angst against Fetzer is the popularity he garnered, especially the amount of books the guy had published up to that point including the Assassination Science Series, sounds much like jealously to this old salt...

I take some offense to the characterization of your term "...his own 'experts'...". In particular, I, being one of those "experts"... whom spent an entire career in the production, post production film/video composing-editing business... tell us, how many records/cd's do you have to produce in order to become a certified JFK assassination researcher/medical evidence expert, facilitator...? Lest you forget Mantik is ALSO a Ph.D, in Physics as well as that pesky old M.D. in Radiation-Oncology.. I suspect D. Mantik has announced death sentences based on X-rays, Scans, Pet Scans and Mri's for years, its not a pleasant field, I know, I own two of those sentences... he has no obvious reason lie, over-blow or exploit associated assassination evidence and its case evidence... I'm sure the concept of "do no harm" has not escaped him...

To bad the same 'do no harm' concept is alien right here on this 'forum', to quote you "PATHETIC" comes to mind...

Hey, Dave, I was diagnosed with leukemia two years ago and given a 30% chance of survival. So I have had the black cloud over me as well. I wish you all the best.

As far as Fetzer, I don't begrudge or malign the contributors to his books, and am friendly with a number of them. He annoyed me not because he was so "popular" but because he acted like he'd written the books himself, when he didn't even pay the contributors or, as often as not, understand the arguments proposed within. He was also, as you know, a terrible friend, picking fights on this forum with the likes of Lifton, White, and Burnham. 

Of course, that doesn't mean the arguments within his books were without merit. But he did you and the likes of Mantik, Aguilar, etc, no favors by linking your names forever with his other "theories", involving 9/11, Wellstone, the Beatles, Sandy Hook, you name it. 

The best to you. 

[Anthony Thorne]

On 4/29/2023 at 9:36 AM, Pat Speer said:

Evidently, Fetzer has now come to believe the thermite theory doesn't hold, and is instead pushing that mini-nuclear devices were installed inside the towers to bring them down.

This strikes me again as a method by Fetzer to tar overall research into the topic with the dumbest brush, to poison the subject through association.

At a Greens political gathering maybe 15 years ago, some guy (not me, I heard the story from someone who was there) tried to raise the topic of 9/11 to the speakers and the crowd.

A woman elsewhere in the crowd immediately yelled, "Those are the guys that think no planes flew into the buildings!"

The whole crowd yelled an angr, derogatory "Aaahhhhh" in response (there's actually an Australian vocalisation that would be best spelled out as "Nyyyyyoooooooahhhhggggh!!", but it's unexplainable to people outside the country who haven't heard it, and immediately recognisable to locals down here who have), and the topic was shut down permanently. Howard Stern picking a no-planer to appear on his show onetime so he could broadcast her nutty theories was another similar method to paint people with questions, or more, with the nut job brush.

JFK researchers should be able to see the trend from the coverage of (maybe the 50th) anniversary a few back, where mainstream news stories noted how there were Elvis impersonators and folks talking about aliens in the crowd when they talked about the people who had gathered on the day.

[Michael Griffith]

19 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

No. 

Yes.

My father's battalion (the U.S. 753rd Tank Battalion) helped to liberate the N-a-z-i concentration camp at Lohr, Germany in 1945.

What do the Moon landing and Holocaust denial conspiracy theories have to do with the JFKA and 9/11 research?

Explain.

Is this related to your exploding refrigerator theory about the Twin Tower demolitions?

The Moon landings and Holocaust denial have just as much to do with JFKA research as does 9/11 Truther nuttiness: nothing. That's the point. But the moderators obviously don't mind discrediting this forum by allowing 9/11 Truther nonsense to be posted in it, even though it has nothing to do with the JFK case.

"Exploding refrigerator theory"? I notice you ignored the huge A/C units that were on each floor and that contained dozens of pounds of freon, which explodes under high heat. You know I wasn't saying that the refrigerators themselves exploded. You know I was referring to the freon tanks in the refrigerators. Those tanks, and also the large tanks of freon in the huge industrial-grade A/C units on every single floor of the Twin Towers, exploded when fire reached them. Just one industrial-grade A/C unit can require up to 60 pounds of freon. 

Take just a 50-pound freon tank to an open field and light a fire under it--and run. See how loud and powerful the resulting explosion is when the tank blows up. This would have been happening with the freon tanks of every one of the industrial-grade A/C units reached by fire in the Twin Towers. 

Finally, I again point out that the 9/11 Truther controlled-demolition theory makes no sense. Why would the alleged insiders have felt the need to blow up the Twin Towers after they were catastrophically damaged by the hijacked jetliners? Would your average American have been any less enraged by the 9/11 attacks if the Twin Towers had not collapsed? No, of course not. 

Hundreds of the people who died in the Twin Towers died from the impact of the airliners when they crashed into the buildings. Over 1,300 of the people who died in the north tower were at over above the point of impact and were unable to escape because all three stairwells were destroyed by the airliner's impact and the resulting explosion. In the south tower, over 600 of the people who died in the building were at or above the point of impact, and only one of the stairwells was usable after the airliner's impact. In other words, even if the towers had not collapsed, the death toll of people in the towers would have been at least 900, at the bare minimum. 

Plus, 125 Americans inside the Pentagon died when Flight 77 crashed into it. The 246 passengers of the hijacked airline flights also died.

So even if the Twin Towers had not collapsed, the total death toll from the attacks would have been at least 1,300. 

It just makes no sense that the supposed insiders would have felt the need to demolish the Twin Towers. They would have had no rational, conceivable motive for doing so. 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

On 4/28/2023 at 10:11 PM, David G. Healy said:

I presume your angst against Fetzer is the popularity he garnered, especially the amount of books the guy had published up to that point including the Assassination Science Series, sounds much like jealously to this old salt...

The "popularity he garnered?" The man was run off this and other forums because of his preposterous, poorly researched claims and frequent personal attacks against other members. That hardly sounds like popularity to me...

[Paul Bacon]

Any pressurized tank will blow when it gets hot enough.  These days, freon is used as a refrigerant because it's much safer.  Before that it was propane.  Propane is flammable, and would create a powerful explosion.

Ever see a video of a house full of leaked propane exploding?  The massive explosion blows the house to bits.  But house fires that consume refrigerators and AC compressors full of freon are controllable.  Firefighters are not worried about them.

Beams connected to columns are not welded.  They are bolted--a mechanical connection is much stronger than a weld.  Thermetic material wrapped around those joints would completely sever the connection.

But beyond all this, there are dozens of reasons to believe the buildings where brought down, not by planes hitting the upper stories, but by controlled demolition.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Paul Bacon
add word

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Any pressurized tank will blow when it gets hot enough.  These days, freon is used as a refrigerant because it's much safer.  Before that it was propane.  Propane is flammable, and would create a powerful explosion.

Ever see a video of a house full of leaked propane exploding?  The massive explosion blows the house to bits.  But house fires that consume refrigerators and AC compressors full of freon are controllable.  Firefighters are not worried about them.

Beams connected to columns are not welded.  They are bolted--a mechanical connection is much stronger than a weld.  Thermetic material wrapped around those joints would completely sever the connection.

But beyond all this, there are dozens of reasons to believe the buildings where brought down, not by planes hitting the upper stories, but by controlled demolition.

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 had always owned WTC7-- the 47-floor skyscraper near the Twin Towers that collapsed in an expert, free fall demolition late in the day on 9/11.

In a subsequent interview, Silverstein said that he had spoken to the NYFD about WTC7 on 9/11, and that he "told them to pull it." *

But the NYFD denied any role in demolishing WTC7.  Who "pulled it" for Silverstein?

Bush & Cheney's NIST fraudsters later claimed that the abrupt free fall collapse of WTC7 was a result of office fires.

But they offered no scientific explanation for the total, free fall collapse.  Their "model" only described, at best, a partial asymmetrical collapse of an upper floor of WTC7-- not the observed free fall collapse of the entire building.

And a partial upper story collapse of WTC7 is not seen on film.  Instead, the distance between upper floors remains constant as the entire 47-floor structure abruptly collapses in an expert demolition.**

* 

 

**

911 WTC 7 Collapse with Dan Rather commentary - YouTube

[Matthew Koch]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The Moon landings and Holocaust denial have just as much to do with JFKA research as does 9/11 Truther nuttiness: nothing. That's the point. But the moderators obviously don't mind discrediting this forum by allowing 9/11 Truther nonsense to be posted in it, even though it has nothing to do with the JFK case.

"Exploding refrigerator theory"? I notice you ignored the huge A/C units that were on each floor and that contained dozens of pounds of freon, which explodes under high heat. You know I wasn't saying that the refrigerators themselves exploded. You know I was referring to the freon tanks in the refrigerators. Those tanks, and also the large tanks of freon in the huge industrial-grade A/C units on every single floor of the Twin Towers, exploded when fire reached them. Just one industrial-grade A/C unit can require up to 60 pounds of freon. 

Take just a 50-pound freon tank to an open field and light a fire under it--and run. See how loud and powerful the resulting explosion is when the tank blows up. This would have been happening with the freon tanks of every one of the industrial-grade A/C units reached by fire in the Twin Towers. 

Finally, I again point out that the 9/11 Truther controlled-demolition theory makes no sense. Why would the alleged insiders have felt the need to blow up the Twin Towers after they were catastrophically damaged by the hijacked jetliners? Would your average American have been any less enraged by the 9/11 attacks if the Twin Towers had not collapsed? No, of course not. 

Hundreds of the people who died in the Twin Towers died from the impact of the airliners when they crashed into the buildings. Over 1,300 of the people who died in the north tower were at over above the point of impact and were unable to escape because all three stairwells were destroyed by the airliner's impact and the resulting explosion. In the south tower, over 600 of the people who died in the building were at or above the point of impact, and only one of the stairwells was usable after the airliner's impact. In other words, even if the towers had not collapsed, the death toll of people in the towers would have been at least 900, at the bare minimum. 

Plus, 125 Americans inside the Pentagon died when Flight 77 crashed into it. The 246 passengers of the hijacked airline flights also died.

So even if the Twin Towers had not collapsed, the total death toll from the attacks would have been at least 1,300. 

It just makes no sense that the supposed insiders would have felt the need to demolish the Twin Towers. They would have had no rational, conceivable motive for doing so. 

 

Michael believes that kids can change their gender so I guess it makes sense that he believes that hijacker passports can survive a plane flying into a building and a building ''collapse". Michael's comments show he is hostilely ignorant of the subject because do to his cognitive dissidence like saying "99% of experts say", when in reality there are studies like this University of Alaska that show that he and others that say there is nothing to the way Building 7 failed are just parroting the opinion of the MSM mocking bird media.. 

 

[Pat Speer]

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?