Conspiracy Theories & The Media: JFK & Beyond ....

[Guest]

Are Walt Whitman, Naom Chomsky, John Taylor Gatto, Albert Einstein & Nietzsche right here? Do we need more anti-authoritarians? Do our problems start with the Prussian style of schooling, teaching conformity and obedience, as opposed to critical/creative thinking? We wonder why the public find it so difficult to entertain that people in power could indeed be guilty of conspiracy. 
 

 

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

It's really not though.

If somewhere around 99% of scientists, architects, and engineers agree on the science which says the WTC fell according to the official story, then it's whatever is said by the other 1% that is actually considered "pseudo-scientific bunk." If somewhere around 99% of scientists agree on climate change, whatever is said by the other 1% is what is actually considered "pseudo-scientific bunk."

At least on this subject, due to scientific consensus, you are the one spreading propaganda, you are the one spreading lies and false advertising. You are in exactly the same camp as climate change deniers. There's really no way around it. Science is not on the side of climate change deniers and science is not on the side of 9/11 truthers. 

But, your beef isn't with me....it's with the scientific community. I'm pretty removed from 9/11 debate, and it would take me some time to refamiliarize myself with these topics if I am going to speak intelligently about them (at least in providing my own opinions). I'm just saying what the scientific community says and what science as a whole says. If the science is wrong, then prove it. Saying things like "c'mon that's just now how it works" isn't really physics, and doesn't do much to negate what the science they are using to back their points says.

Mark,

      Please.  Thousands of scientists and engineers who have actually studied the WTC demolitions overwhelmingly reject the NIST report, which was nothing more than an expensive, pseudo-scientific cover up by the Bush-Cheney administration. It was intended to bamboozle people who don't understand basic physics.

      It's analogous to the Warren Commission's Single Bullet Theory.

      Are you aware that the Bush-Cheney NIST guys refused to even publish the data they used for the parameters in their bogus computer "simulation"  of the WTC demolitions?

      That they didn't even attempt to explain the observed, symmetrical free fall collapse of WTC7?  Instead, they described a possible model for an initial partial upper story collapse-- as if that alone could explain the abrupt demolition of the massive steel sub-structure of the entire building.

      Look at the GIF (below) of the collapse of WT7.  Notice that the distance between the upper floors remains constant as the entire structure descends at the acceleration of gravity!  There is no gravitational pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors.  It was an expert explosive demolition.

      Albert Einstein one said, "If you can't explain something straightforwardly, you probably don't understand it."

      Re-read what I wrote (above) about Newtonian physics and the free fall collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

      It's not rocket science.  Free fall collapse = zero resistance to collapse.  Ergo, the massive steel girders were abruptly demolished.  And if you study the film, you can easily observe the serial explosions that pulverized the WTC towers.

 

Below: The distance between the upper floors of WTC7

remains constant as the building collapses in a free fall.

 

Edited July 23, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Mark Stevens]

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark,

      Please.  Thousands of scientists and engineers who have actually studied the WTC demolitions overwhelmingly reject the NIST report, which was nothing more than an expensive, pseudo-scientific cover up by the Bush-Cheney administration. It was intended to bamboozle people who don't understand basic physics.

      It's analogous to the Warren Commission's Single Bullet Theory.

      Are you aware that the Bush-Cheney NIST guys refused to even publish the data they used for the parameters in their bogus computer "simulation"  of the WTC demolitions?

      That they didn't even attempt to explain the observed, symmetrical free fall collapse of WTC7?  Instead, they described a possible model for an initial partial upper story collapse-- as if that alone could explain the abrupt demolition of the massive steel sub-structure of the entire building.

      Look at the GIF (below) of the collapse of WT7.  Notice that the distance between the upper floors remains constant as the entire structure descends at the acceleration of gravity!  There is no gravitational pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors.  It was an expert explosive demolition.

      Albert Einstein one said, "If you can't explain something straightforwardly, you probably don't understand it."

      Re-read what I wrote (above) about Newtonian physics and the free fall collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

      It's not rocket science.  Free fall collapse = zero resistance to collapse.  Ergo, the massive steel girders were abruptly demolished.  And if you study the film, you can easily observe the serial explosions that pulverized the WTC towers.

 

Below: The distance between the upper floors of WTC7

remains constant as the building collapses in a free fall.

[gif removed from reply]

 

You're speaking directly to my point though.

Much like a climate change denier says "there are thousands of scientists who reject the [insert organization or report here]" you say the same, but with the WTC. This puts you on the opposite side of mainstream, peer reviewed, community accepted, public protecting science. The thousands of scientists and engineers you speak of are still only in the 2%. The other 98% says you're wrong and right or wrong that is the voice that is listened to, that is the voice of "reason."

Nothing you say or post will change that.

The question I'm trying to get you to answer, is does that then make it suitable to censor your argument? Both situations fit your criteria for censorship. If you are for banning climate change dissent based on scientific concensus, you have to logically be for banning 9/11 truth discussion based on the same scientific consensus. They are one and the same. Your agreement with the consensus/research or lackthereof doesn't change the scientific agreement that exists in both areas.

At the end of the day the criteria you have laid out for censorship includes your WTC 9/11 truth arguments. If censorship as you want it were put into effect, you would be equally censored. I get that you think you are right about 9/11 and you think climate change deniers are wrong, but that doesn't change where science sits on those two issues. On one you are on the same side as science, on another you are not.

This isn't meant to be a 9/11 debate so there really isn't a point in trying to convince me one way or the other. I'm just pointing out what science says about the issue and how that relates to your ideas of censorship. 

[W. Niederhut]

Mark,

    You, obviously, haven't studied, or understood, the bona fide scientific research on the 9/11 WTC demolitions.

    Let's talk about the scientific data after you've actually studied it.

    Here are some quality references.*

    Meanwhile, if you're sincerely concerned about censorship in our media, perhaps you can explain to us why the bona fide scientific and forensic evidence about what really happened on 9/11 has been completely blacked out of the U.S. mainstream media for the past 20 years!

    

*https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/beyond-misinformation

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/419-the-missing-jolt-a-simple-refutation-of-the-nist-bazant-collapse-hypothesis

 

 

 

   

   

[Jeff Carter]

Censorship invariably promotes and supports orthodoxies - I.e. the sun and planets revolve around the Earth - and should, in my opinion, be resisted short of a prevailing short-term limited necessity (although even that should face skepticism). Critical thinking skills - a life skill - should be part of a public education system, as finely tuned BS detecting assists greatly in deflating preposterous notions. Critical thinking skills resist either/or paradigms - into which contemporary public debates over vaccination mandates or climate change are often charged.

With covid, the western capitalist countries have been unable to establish public heath regimes based on eradication, and have instead adopted mitigation strategies based on inoculation. The products being injected into the public have not been fully tested and cannot be, at least yet,  labelled “safe” or verified.That is a fact, and the urge to deny or downplay the fact does not contribute to the public good. Outright censorship and “cancelling” individuals over this issue for expressing an opinion should therefore be resisted, but it is fully prevalent - not a good read on our society. (Personally, I get my second jab next week, with reservations but in acknowledgement that this is the public heath measure we have and our best interests are served by getting back to “normal” - but the campaign to inoculate teenagers and children with the unproven product is rather irrational mob-rush policy.)

With global warming, variations in the Earth’s climate over time is established while the causation effect of carbon emissions less so. These emissions may be exacerbating natural trends without being solely responsible for al the heating (I think this is true), but there are also severe public health issues associated with these pollutions to consider as well (i.e. lives shortened due to particulates in the air). So its in our interests to do better, but an entire dismantling of industrial civilization - which  is in part promoted by elite interests - seems a step too far. When I hear advocates demand the cessation of international travel while never referring to the greenhouse gases emitted by the world’s militaries - by far the worst polluters - then I wonder what agenda is being followed.

Further complicating is the prevalence of fear discourses in discussions of covid and global warming. The role of pubic relations industries have to also factor into all this talk. Remember, the cigarette peddlers managed to keep their products on the shelves for decades after science established a direct causal link between the product and fatal or debilitating diseases by controlling or overwhelming the information. It seems right now the public discussions we should be having are not yet happening because they are being diverted - or censored.

[Guest]

Speaking of censorship, there is a great back and forth discussion between Bret Weinstein & Lex Fridman on the subject. 

 

[Mark Stevens]

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark,

    You, obviously, haven't studied, or understood, the bona fide scientific research on the 9/11 WTC demolitions.

    Let's talk about the scientific data after you've actually studied it.

    Here are some quality references.*

    Meanwhile, if you're sincerely concerned about censorship in our media, perhaps you can explain to us why the bona fide scientific and forensic evidence about what really happened on 9/11 has been completely blacked out of the U.S. mainstream media for the past 20 years!

    

*https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/beyond-misinformation

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/419-the-missing-jolt-a-simple-refutation-of-the-nist-bazant-collapse-hypothesis

You're again making this about me and what I think when I haven't offered any opinions. You continue to beat around my point. You again prove my point by saying the "fringe" research is the "bona-fide" scientific evidence when again, that is just not the case. If that evidence was the bona-fide evidence, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the NIST report. What I'm saying is the report and the information contained within it is the accepted science, that is the bona-fide evidence. You know what I am saying. You don't have to accept that report, that is fine. But, in refusing to accept that science you become a climate change denier. You dismiss accepted science and instead say your science is the real science. 

You know what I'm saying. This isn't about my 9/11 beliefs or whether I believe the NIST report.

I'm simply saying, the NIST report is the accepted science.

Climate change science and whatever report/study is the accepted science.

If you dismiss either of these items you are dismissing what is considered by the general public to be the "bona-fide evidence." Your evidence is the "fringe" evidence, your science is the "pseudoscience" until it becomes the accepted science, even if it is actually the truth. Until it is accepted as the truth, it's not.

Again, this is not about my personal beliefs on 9/11 or even climate change.

[W. Niederhut]

54 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

You're again making this about me and what I think when I haven't offered any opinions. You continue to beat around my point. You again prove my point by saying the "fringe" research is the "bona-fide" scientific evidence when again, that is just not the case. If that evidence was the bona-fide evidence, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the NIST report. What I'm saying is the report and the information contained within it is the accepted science, that is the bona-fide evidence. You know what I am saying. You don't have to accept that report, that is fine. But, in refusing to accept that science you become a climate change denier. You dismiss accepted science and instead say your science is the real science. 

You know what I'm saying. This isn't about my 9/11 beliefs or whether I believe the NIST report.

I'm simply saying, the NIST report is the accepted science.

Climate change science and whatever report/study is the accepted science.

If you dismiss either of these items you are dismissing what is considered by the general public to be the "bona-fide evidence." Your evidence is the "fringe" evidence, your science is the "pseudoscience" until it becomes the accepted science, even if it is actually the truth. Until it is accepted as the truth, it's not.

Again, this is not about my personal beliefs on 9/11 or even climate change.

Mark,

      The NIST report is not accepted science.  In fact, it has been thoroughly debunked.

      Read the scientific references I posted for you (above.)

      It's not a matter of opinion or mainstream media spin (and truly astonishing censorship.)  It's a matter of scientific fact. 

Edited July 24, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark,

      The NIST report is not accepted science.  In fact, it has been thoroughly debunked.

      Read the scientific references I posted for you (above.)

      It's not a matter of opinion or mainstream media spin.  It's a matter of scientific fact.

BTW Did you read earlier in the thread that Philip Zelicow has been tasked with setting up a 'Covid Commission'. He is the same guy who after public outcry about Henry Kissinger being appointed as Executive Director of the '9/11 Commission', replaced him and was Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Also the same guy who authored the Iraq war strategy. 
You just can't make this stuff up. 

[W. Niederhut]

40 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

BTW Did you read earlier in the thread that Philip Zelicow has been tasked with setting up a 'Covid Commission'. He is the same guy who after public outcry about Henry Kissinger being appointed as Executive Director of the '9/11 Commission', replaced him and was Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Also the same guy who authored the Iraq war strategy. 
You just can't make this stuff up. 

          Indeed.  Condoleeza Rice's close colleague, Phillip Zelikow, is an interesting case.  His real expertise has to do with crafting and propagating public myths relating to disasters, which is precisely what he did with his 9/11 Commission Report.

         The parallels with the Warren Commission Report are striking-- e.g., drafting a preconceived narrative and assiduously ignoring and filtering out all of the contrary evidence.

         As for Henry Kissinger, I have noticed a few facts in the public domain about his possible connection to 9/11.

1)  After the controversial Bush v. Gore SCOTUS ruling in December of 2000, Kissinger curiously said that he "could think of nothing that would improve George W. Bush's popularity more dramatically than a terrorist attack on the U.S."

2)  On 9/11, Kissinger appeared on Sky Television in Europe to announce that the 9/11 attacks were most likely perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.  Something had to be done about "terrorism," etc. 

3)  Kissinger & Associates CEO, L. Paul Bremer, appeared on CNN television in Manhattan, within an hour of the attack on the World Trade Center, and announced that the 9/11 attack on the WTC was most likely perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.   Something had to be done about "terrorism," etc.

(BTW, Paul Bremer looked remarkable calm on CNN for a guy working in an office where 300 of his Marsh & McLennan colleagues had just been violently killed by a crashing plane!    The nose cone of the first plane to hit the WTC struck precisely at L. Paul Bremer's Marsh & McLennan office in the WTC.)

Bremer was later appointed by Bush and Rumsfeld, in May of 2004, as the military governor of occupied Iraq in charge of implementing Rumsfeld's disastrous de-Baathification policy.

4)  Under mounting pressure to finally conduct an investigation of 9/11, George W. Bush asked Henry Kissinger to chair a 9/11 Commission.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

          Indeed.  Condoleeza Rice's close colleague, Phillip Zelikow, is an interesting case.  His real expertise has to do with crafting and propagating public myths relating to disasters, which is precisely what he did with his 9/11 Commission Report.

         The parallels with the Warren Commission Report are striking-- e.g., drafting a preconceived narrative and assiduously ignoring and filtering out all of the contrary evidence.

         As for Henry Kissinger, I have noticed a few facts in the public domain about his possible connection to 9/11.

1)  After the controversial Bush v. Gore SCOTUS ruling in December of 2000, Kissinger curiously said that he "could think of nothing that would improve George W. Bush's popularity more dramatically than a terrorist attack on the U.S."

2)  On 9/11, Kissinger appeared on Sky Television in Europe to announce that the 9/11 attacks were most likely perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.  Something had to be done about "terrorism," etc. 

3)  Kissinger & Associates CEO, L. Paul Bremer, appeared on CNN television in Manhattan, within an hour of the attack on the World Trade Center, and announced that the 9/11 attack on the WTC was most likely perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.   Something had to be done about "terrorism," etc.

(BTW, Paul Bremer looked remarkable calm on CNN for a guy working in an office where 300 of his Marsh & McLennan colleagues had just been violently killed by a crashing plane!    The nose cone of the first plane to hit the WTC struck precisely at L. Paul Bremer's Marsh & McLennan office in the WTC.)

Bremer was later appointed by Bush and Rumsfeld, in May of 2004, as the military governor of occupied Iraq in charge of implementing Rumsfeld's disastrous de-Baathification policy.

4)  Under mounting pressure to finally conduct an investigation of 9/11, George W. Bush asked Henry Kissinger to chair a 9/11 Commission.

Thanks, some very interesting points there that I didn’t know. Just like the JFKA, we come across coincidences on a level that that far exceeds probability and we’re asked to swallow it and conform to whatever is passed down from authority. 
 

 

 

[Guest]

Two companies have a monopoly in every major industry, Vanguard & Blackrock. I think some of you will find the way all of this fits together pretty staggering. Also how these influential ‘foundations’ or ‘non-profits’ are used. 
The World Economic Forum gets a mention again, along with its acolytes and backers. 
1% owns more money than the other 99%. 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to 1% of the world population. Can you envisage what Covid19 / lockdowns are doing to those stats? It’s pushing more wealth upwards to that 1% and wiping out the middle class. 

The video is an easy watch but, there is a transcript too. 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/bill-sardi/who-runs-the-world-blackrock-and-vanguard/

[Paul Bacon]

20 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark,

    You, obviously, haven't studied, or understood, the bona fide scientific research on the 9/11 WTC demolitions.

    Let's talk about the scientific data after you've actually studied it.

    Here are some quality references.*

    Meanwhile, if you're sincerely concerned about censorship in our media, perhaps you can explain to us why the bona fide scientific and forensic evidence about what really happened on 9/11 has been completely blacked out of the U.S. mainstream media for the past 20 years!

    

*https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/beyond-misinformation

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/419-the-missing-jolt-a-simple-refutation-of-the-nist-bazant-collapse-hypothesis

 

 

 

   

   

6 or 7 years ago, while working as a self-employed, small-time remodeling contractor and having some time on my hands, I looked into 9/11 "conspiracy theories".  The subject came up so often and, being a convinced JFK conspiracy believer, I thought "mabey there's something to this after all."

I spent more than a week reading, but even after the first day, I was completely convinced the building was brought down by controlled demolition.  The evidence was overwhelming.

To this day I remain convinced.  I've spent hours considering the ramifications of this being true.  It, very much, follows the JFK assasination handbook and I blame Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

I know this is the JFK Assasination forum, but I do believe the two are inexorably linked.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

6 or 7 years ago, while working as a self-employed, small-time remodeling contractor and having some time on my hands, I looked into 9/11 "conspiracy theories".  The subject came up so often and, being a convinced JFK conspiracy believer, I thought "mabey there's something to this after all."

I spent more than a week reading, but even after the first day, I was completely convinced the building was brought down by controlled demolition.  The evidence was overwhelming.

To this day I remain convinced.  I've spent hours considering the ramifications of this being true.  It, very much, follows the JFK assasination handbook and I blame Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

I know this is the JFK Assasination forum, but I do believe the two are inexorably linked.

The two being linked would explain why the cover up of the JFKA continues, even after every perpetrator is dead. The ramifications of a coup in late 1963 and the security apparatus conspiring to cover it up, means every suspicious event thereafter will be looked at with a fine tooth comb. To me, its like a piece of thread, you pull on it and it just keeps unraveling revealing more. Sure, lots of the public will probably accept a JFKA conspiracy now and be a bit more suspicious of the state but, if 9/11 was revealed, they’ll be a witch hunt for those responsible and those people will goto ant length to avoid that. I feel a bit like you about this, the 9/11 story stinks to high heaven. I know some on here will find the concept difficult to grasp.
 

PS This thread is really an open discussion about lots of things, I wouldn’t worry about 9/11 being off topic, its all relative to most of what is being alleged here starting with JFK. 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Chris Barnard

[Pete Mellor]

US House of representatives member Ronny Jackson tweeted on Tuesday that, "something is seriously wrong with Biden, and it's only going to get worse". The Republican congressman from Texas added in another tweet that, "it's past the point of embarrassment. He's lost, he can barely put a coherent sentence together.

"He must have a cognitive exam and release the results!"

Mr Jackson then appeared on Fox News to claim that Mr Biden and lost his footing on the stairwell of Air Force One.

He now maintains that because of the president's "difficulty speaking coherently", he will have to be either forced from office with the invocation of 25th Amendment or he will resign.

The former physician to Donald Trump then said: "If members of Biden's cabinet aren't looking into invoking the 25th Amendment, then this is a national security issue at this point it really is."