Jump to content

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


Chris Barnard
 Share

Recommended Posts

Frankly, my dear Mark, I don't give a damn about your alleged "polls" and propaganda sources.

Let's get back to the actual science of the WTC demolitions and the pseudo-scientific NIST Report.

I'm posting the answers (in red below) to my questions from Saturday that you still refuse to answer.

    

1)  What was the NIST Report's explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical, free fall collapse of WTC7?

They offered no explanation.  Their computer "simulation" merely described a theoretical model for the initiation of a partial upper floor collapse.  But there was no observed top-down gravitational "pile driver" effect during the WTC7 collapse.  The distance between the upper WTC7 floors remained constant as the entire building collapsed in a free fall.  The NIST offered no explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical demolition of the entire 47 floor steel sub-structure!

2)  What was the NIST's explanation for the observed explosive pulverization of 900,000 tons of concrete (and office furniture, human bodies, etc.) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11?

They had no explanation for the massive explosive pulverization of the WTC concrete, office furniture, and human bodies. In fact, they didn't even acknowledge the obvious explosions.

3)  How did they explain the observed liquefied steel that was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero?

They did not acknowledge the existence of the liquefied steel described by multiple witnesses.

4)  How did they explain the observed (and audible) serial explosions during the free fall collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?

They did not acknowledge the visible and audible serial explosions.

5)  Did the NIST conduct a forensic/arson investigation of the WTC debris for evidence of explosives?

The NIST did not even examine the WTC debris for evidence of explosives.

6)  If steel skyscrapers collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration, what is the resistance (r) to collapse caused by their steel substructures?

Zero.  Any resistance to collapse would have impeded free fall acceleration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 416
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

When I looked briefly into the 9/11 stuff years ago, what struck me was that the 'inside job' argument relied fundamentally on the idea that the buildings had been sabotaged... there doesn't seem to be any way of explaining 9/11 as an inside job without coming up with something as inherently implausible as blowing up the buildings.

That’s not the case. In fact, the first effective doubts were raised within a day or two based on the failure of the Air Force to respond promptly to a hijacking situation. That led to an extraordinary revision of the Pentagon’s timeline, presented on national television, on September 14.

Later, after the 9/11 Commission’s work, researchers were able to finely trace a paper trail which revealed the deliberate obfuscation of the presence in the US of two alleged future hijackers, a process generated and carried out by the CIA. This involved controlling information to the FBI, but also to other agencies in the lead-up to the event when supposedly there was a “high alert” of a possible attack. The officials responsible could be named, as were other officials who controlled the dissemination of the information to investigating bodies. (See, for example, Kevin Fenton’s “Disconnecting The Dots” Trine Day 2011)

I agree that the fate of the WTC buildings cannot be absolutely established (although WTC 7 is seriously suspicious) and, just like photo and body manipulation in JFKA, the powers-that-be are therefore content that the focus remains there. In both instances there are other evidentiary issues which are much stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

When I looked briefly into the 9/11 stuff years ago, what struck me was that the 'inside job' argument relied fundamentally on the idea that the buildings had been sabotaged.

I do know about huge confirmation bias and the public trust in the great father figure (the state). I understand why instinctively most Americans would find the concept that 9/11 was inside job hard to accept or fathom. It goes against patriotism, the flag and everything a citizen is brought up to believe in, which is one reason why it works. It seems inconceivable, a bit like Operation Northwoods, right? Or the Third Reich setting fire to the Reichstag?! Or the US government staging the Bay of Tonkin incident to manufacture public consent to upscale the Vietnam War. There is a massive list of these false flags. The concept is to consolidate power and the prize was the biggest data capture in history, which is worth more than oil. And of course 20 years of the war on terror in the middle east and that’s without even mentioning the trading. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Bad for the tax payer, fantastic for the military industrial complex and the host of profiteering defence contractors and munitions companies. Cui bono! 
 

Struggling with internet here but, I can dig out masses of inconsistencies about 9/11 if meed be. Do you want to know the truth? Or do you just want to dig in and tell everybody else they are wrong. If its the latter, we’ll all be wasting time. 
 

Cheers

 

Chris

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

That’s not the case. In fact, the first effective doubts were raised within a day or two based on the failure of the Air Force to respond promptly to a hijacking situation. That led to an extraordinary revision of the Pentagon’s timeline, presented on national television, on September 14.

Later, after the 9/11 Commission’s work, researchers were able to finely trace a paper trail which revealed the deliberate obfuscation of the presence in the US of two alleged future hijackers, a process generated and carried out by the CIA. This involved controlling information to the FBI, but also to other agencies in the lead-up to the event when supposedly there was a “high alert” of a possible attack. The officials responsible could be named, as were other officials who controlled the dissemination of the information to investigating bodies. (See, for example, Kevin Fenton’s “Disconnecting The Dots” Trine Day 2011)

I agree that the fate of the WTC buildings cannot be absolutely established (although WTC 7 is seriously suspicious) and, just like photo and body manipulation in JFKA, the powers-that-be are therefore content that the focus remains there. In both instances there are other evidentiary issues which are much stronger.

That's not entirely correct, Jeff.  The scientific evidence of controlled, explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 is overwhelming.  Those were free fall, symmetrical collapses, sans resistance.  The entire steel sub-structures had to be abruptly demolished by something powerful enough to sever the massive steel columns. In the cases of WTC1 and WTC2, you can also clearly observe the molten (orange) steel cascades and serial explosions that pulverized thousands of tons of concrete into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan in virtual pyroclastic flows.

I agree that there is also other evidence that 9/11 was a false flag op.  The aggressive high-level FBI suppression of the field reports about the Muslim "Al Qaeda" patsies prior to 9/11 is one example among many.  Former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, has documented some of that strange FBI conduct during Louis Freeh's FBI Directorship in 2001.   The perpetrators of 9/11 were, apparently creating legends for their Muslim "Al Qaeda" patsies in 2001, and FBI field reports about their suspicious activities were suppressed at a high level by the Bush-Cheney administration prior to 9/11.

Oddly, the legends, themselves, were flawed.  Those guys were supposed to be devout Muslim Fundamentalist martyrs  engaged in a jihad, but, in reality, they had CIA ties, (as did Bin Laden) drank alcohol, snorted cocaine, and cavorted with strippers.  In the case of Hamzi Hanjour, they were also lousy pilots-- somewhat reminiscent of Oswald's lousy marksmanship.  And many of them were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes.

None of them were photographed boarding airplanes on 9/11, and none were listed on the flight manifests.

But the perpetrators of 9/11 didn't need hijackers.  Raytheon's remote-piloting GPS technology for Boeing jetliners was successfully tested in Marana, Arizona by August of 2001.   The U.S. military was able to successfully take off, precisely maneuver, and land Boeing jetliners without pilots prior to September of 2001.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaccinologist, Dr Robert Malone, the inventor of the MRNA tech says that the data indicates that people who have had the MRNA jabs are more susceptible to Cov19 than the unvaccinated, as the virus is able to replicate at a faster rate. Pfizer is the casing point right now, as their jab is 3 x less effective than the Moderna one and the issue is happening as its effectiveness is waning (Pfizer lasts 6 months). The DR says this same phenomena has happened with previously produced Covid vaccines. He called Fauci disingenuous, and a xxxx. 
(video on Bannon’s War Room). 
 

in other news, the CDC have dropped using PCR tests to detect Covid, a year or so after the public and experts have been stating the test gives false positives. Its almost like the inventor of the PCR test, Cary Mullis said that years ago about detecting viruses. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David E Martin is alleging he has proof of criminal conduct and racketeering in regard to patents for the virus gene sequencing and the vaccines, that were all filed at the US patent office before the pandemic began. He has a tremendous quote from Peter Daszak.

“We need to increase public understanding for the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.” 

Feb 12 2016,

Dr Peter Daszak, Eco Health Alliance
 

Here is the actual video, he sounds like someone who has their act together on these patents. FYI he is not a medical Dr as far as I am aware, just a PHD.

Dr David E Martin - Covid Patents

 

Just in the interest of balance, here is what Thompson Reuters said about him in one of their fact checks earlier this year (not relating to this). And also Fact Check criticising him. You can decide if what he is saying has merit. 


https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2AM0SS

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/new-plandemic-video-peddles-misinformation-conspiracies/

 

I can’t verify the patents but, I am sure you guys in the US can easily. 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Bauer writes:

Quote

If thousands put their names to published papers on the conspiracy side ( which they actually did ) you mean to say 50X that number of other experts did the same with other non-conspiracy published papers

That's the difference between, say, climate scientists and structural engineers. Climate change is central to the former's professional interests, but 9/11 is marginal to the latter's.

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of architectural and engineering experts think of the truthers as a bunch of cranks who aren't worth arguing against, in much the same way that the vast majority of astronomers don't bother arguing with moon-landings deniers. But I could be wrong.

Quote

I'm one of the totally ignorant public in these areas of study, but my common sense says the collapse of building 7 seemed as perfectly footprint, all at once free falling as any controlled demolition videos I have seen since the story was first widely reported.

The point I was making is that common sense isn't a reliable guide to questions that require specialist knowledge. Just because something kinda sorta looks remarkable to a layman doesn't mean it actually is. There are plenty of examples of this in the JFK assassination debate. The towers may well have been blown up, but if only a small minority of recognised experts claim they were, I don't think I'd be justified in believing it.

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

I understand why instinctively most Americans would find the concept that 9/11 was inside job hard to accept or fathom. It goes against patriotism, the flag and everything a citizen is brought up to believe in, which is one reason why it works.

The American penchant for flag-waving certainly looks bizarre and worrying to many outsiders. Here in Britain, on the very rare occasions that you see a Union Jack in someone's front garden, your Fascisty-Nutcase Alarm goes off. But almost all of the Americans I've met who display flags on their houses or cars aren't the same sort of people who fly flags in other countries. It's a cultural thing.

I'm not sure that indoctrination for subservience to authority is much worse in the USA than in most countries. After all, there has been a consistent majority who doubt the official interpretation of the JFK assassination. As I understand it (and I could be wrong), the official account of 9/11 does not generate the same level of public doubt.

The most notable type of mass indoctrination that exists in the US actually encourages its victims to see officialdom as the enemy: the whole Fox News and hate radio subculture, where much of the anti-vaccination craziness comes from.

Quote

There is a massive list of these false flags ... Cui bono!

Compared to the number of political figures who have been assassinated by their enemies rather than by motiveless lone nuts, the number of false flag operations is tiny.

And the cui bono argument doesn't really apply in the case of 9/11, which was used as an excuse for repression by authoritarian regimes all over the world. Plenty of individuals, institutions and regimes benefitted who cannot have had anything to do with the event. And you'd think that if the US regime wanted to stage an event that would help it in its goal of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, they wouldn't have used quite so many hijackers from Saudi Arabia.

Jeff Carter writes:

Quote

I agree that the fate of the WTC buildings cannot be absolutely established (although WTC 7 is seriously suspicious) and, just like photo and body manipulation in JFKA, the powers-that-be are therefore content that the focus remains there.

Could be. What I find interesting is that the 'everything is a conspiracy' JFK types, who find satisfaction in all the body-alteration and film-alteration nonsense, tend to gravitate towards the 9/11 stuff too. The more rational critics of the lone-nut theory, on the other hand, tend not to. At least, that's my impression.

W. Niederhut disagrees:

Quote

That's not entirely correct, Jeff.  The scientific evidence of controlled, explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 is overwhelming.

Overwhelming to Mr Niederhut, perhaps, but one of the points Mark made was that it isn't overwhelming to the majority of experts.

Quote

And many of them [the hijackers] were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes.

Now that sounds spooky! Is there really any strong evidence for that? If there is, it would be a remarkable thing. The continued existence of the hijackers would provide convincing evidence of an inside job.

Mr Niederhut seems to think it's a fact, but is his belief justified? If the evidence for the continued existence of the hijackers is as strong as he claims, it makes you wonder why anyone bothers with all the technical analysis of collapsing buildings that doesn't seem to have convinced most of the experts. 

I can't help thinking of similar claims to do with the JFK assassination, such as the claim that two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theater. It sounded far-fetched, but if true, it would be good evidence for some sort of doppelganger project. Needless to say, it turned out to be just the usual misinterpretation of the evidence by people who were predisposed to see conspiracies everywhere, and only one Oswald was actually arrested. What's the evidence that many of the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11"?

Quote

But the perpetrators of 9/11 didn't need hijackers.  Raytheon's remote-piloting GPS technology for Boeing jetliners

I get the feeling that we're creeping towards James Fetzer and Jack White territory here. No hijackers, just remote-controlled planes. Is that what Mr Niederhut believes? Why would he bring up the idea of "remote-piloting GPS technology for Boeing jetliners" if he doesn't believe that this may have happened? Personally, it was reading this sort of thing years ago that made me dismiss the 9/11 stuff as far-fetched speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The American penchant for flag-waving certainly looks bizarre and worrying to many outsiders. Here in Britain, on the very rare occasions that you see a Union Jack in someone's front garden, your Fascisty-Nutcase Alarm goes off. But almost all of the Americans I've met who display flags on their houses or cars aren't the same sort of people who fly flags in other countries. It's a cultural thing.

 

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

 

I'm not sure that indoctrination for subservience to authority is much worse in the USA than in most countries. After all, there has been a consistent majority who doubt the official interpretation of the JFK assassination. As I understand it (and I could be wrong), the official account of 9/11 does not generate the same level of public doubt.

The most notable type of mass indoctrination that exists in the US actually encourages its victims to see officialdom as the enemy: the whole Fox News and hate radio subculture, where much of the anti-vaccination craziness comes from.

Hi Jeremy, There is not the same level of suspicion of 9/11 as there is the JFKA. It’s a ‘fait accompli’, mostly, people don’t wake up in the moment, it takes time for the dust to settle. In my early 20’s, with my only focus on sports and socialising with girls, I watched the news and saw the second plane hit in real time, it looked kosher to me. We were all stunned. We shouldn’t underestimate the power and psychological sway of witnessing such an event, it affected us all in many ways we are not conscious of. You could draw a parallel between watching a well loved leader of the free world being assassinated sat with his wife in a motorcade, by a Communist (lie) and watching 3k+ Americans being murdered in their offices by the new spectre of the day, Al Quaeda (lie). 
 

As a non-US citizen, it seems there is more pride, as they are still the worlds number one empire of the moment. The pride or patriotism is strong and because they are No.1 its acceptable to exhibit it, just the same as it was for Britain or Rome when that spot was occupied. Plenty of people waved British flags with pride before a concerted media campaign to make anyone that did it a pariah, simpleton or fascist nut. Why would the media do that? It may have something to do with Britain and many other nations being corralled into a European Federalist block, that was funding academia and news in those countries. You have to sell the idea for people to accept it. Nobody was knocked or called Fascist for waving an EU flag, right? Because they were the perceived good guys in the story.
 

With mentioning Fox, you’re assuming one side is the righteous one, we’re back to the good vs evil narrative. In reality, you’re getting Pepsi or Coke and the actual policy differences are slim. In the media and promises for elections, they sound huge. Of course when the party is in power, you just get continuity for the same elite that profited from these aforementioned wars. When they are held to account by some people after a term in office, they blame the other party and system for not being able to meet their promises. How many elections do we need to see the same thing happening to actually wake up? CNN is as important as FOX. Without FOX, the public will treat the remaining networks with greater scrutiny and suspicion. 

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Compared to the number of political figures who have been assassinated by their enemies rather than by motiveless lone nuts, the number of false flag operations is tiny.

And the cui bono argument doesn't really apply in the case of 9/11, which was used as an excuse for repression by authoritarian regimes all over the world. Plenty of individuals, institutions and regimes benefitted who cannot have had anything to do with the event. And you'd think that if the US regime wanted to stage an event that would help it in its goal of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, they wouldn't have used quite so many hijackers from Saudi Arabia.

Think about the following effects that resulted from 9/11:

- America suddenly had a gold pass to enter any country in the middle east or islamic world, all they needed to do is attach some spurious claim that the country was attached to terrorism. Therefore they are an enemy of freedom and liberty, and democracy must be instilled in these places, for the safety of America and it’s allies. 99% of watched the video of the twin towers destroyed, just nodded in agreement. 
- Raytheon, Northrup Gruman, Halliburton, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Honeywell, United technologies and many others all just got a pass to milk the tax payers of The USA for 20 years. The racket is always that the consent is manufactured in the media, tax payer payers for it, private corps pick up the tab. Then you have all of the oil companies in the same racket. After each war when you’ve placed your puppet government in, you get favourable terms which amount to exploitation from the new government. You even sell them security contracts and training. I think you’d be staggered by the amount of money and profit alone. Then you have everyone in the know who has the information that the USA is going to war a little earlier than everyone else. They start trading and making tons of money too. Its unbelievably lucrative. This is detailed in very basic terms in major general Smedley Butler’s “War is a Racket” in the 1930’s. Even the military over ordering equipment and stuff they don’t need is part of the corruption. When you see how much company profits soar in wartime, it’s in their interests to have wars. 
- The Pentagon / Govt gets the Patriot Act and the biggest data capture in history begins, and the idea that your data must be given up because its keeping the world safe is accepted easily. Data is worth more than oil now. 

I know I am repeating or reinforcing some points here but, I can’t tell you how big this is. 
 

We buy into this heroes and villains narrative that plays out in books, film and TV. The reality is, there is money, power and influence. That’s what makes the world go around. People who are very wealthy understand this, the rest of us carry on watching films where America is saving the world. That’s very effective propaganda in itself. Before you think that sounds a long stretch, have a look at the films Goebbels was making in WW2. 
 

Let me ask you a question, if we provide you with scenarios that are impossible, or against logic or all probability regarding 9/11 and the evidence points toward the state, like many think it does with the JFKA, will you accept 9/11 was carried our by some other guys than the ones in the 9/11 report? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9/11 was the official kickoff for America's position as the sole hegemonic global superpower, a project which is steadily diminishing twenty years on. The intent to regime-change the Mid-East ("7 countries in 5 years") stalled half way through, and the indifference and carelessness which characterized the associated collateral damage severely damaged USA's global reputation.

It was the (seemingly related) anthrax attacks which were responsible for the domestic restructuring into a full-fledged national security regime, which included the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Department. These attacks were eventually pinned on a "lone nut", but the consequences were profound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

9/11 was the official kickoff for America's position as the sole hegemonic global superpower, a project which is steadily diminishing twenty years on. The intent to regime-change the Mid-East ("7 countries in 5 years") stalled half way through, and the indifference and carelessness which characterized the associated collateral damage severely damaged USA's global reputation.

It was the (seemingly related) anthrax attacks which were responsible for the domestic restructuring into a full-fledged national security regime, which included the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Department. These attacks were eventually pinned on a "lone nut", but the consequences were profound.

One thing I would point out, is that I don’t think the dissolution of the USA is a natural phenomena, as we’re seeing the same thing happening in most western countries. Whether people agree with this sentiment or not, we’re teaching the history of nation states is bad in the media and school/academia. It’s necessary to deconstruct culture if you are to achieve a blank canvas, a neutral society. Its the same thing you do to POW’s when you turn them and achieve false confessions, you take away everything they are attached to and condition behaviours to something new. If we are to subscribe/consent to this ‘new world order’ or ‘globalist agenda’ of a one world government & technocracy. Then we need to leave all attachments behind and see the vision of a future as better than the past. 
Anybody who thinks that sounds a far stretch, may want to read about technocracy, the psychology of changing peoples views and beliefs via social conditioning and perhaps something like ‘Tragedy & Hope” by Bill Clinton mentor and Ivy League lecturer, Carroll Quigley. Emulating China is the fastest route to walking us into technocracy, with their 600million face recognition cameras, state controlled financial system and social credit scoring, they are leading the way. 
The amazing thing is, the conditioning is so heavy that we think censoring free speech, silencing political dissenters and adopting authoritarian stances is of value. In 1960 they were the things western society was wary of. 
if we stop and think, who do millennials and those there after think so differently to us? Is it a natural evolution? Do they have a better vision than us? Where did their ideas come from? 
We’re teaching obedience, compliance and that helplessness is a virtue. We’re not teaching people about money or critical thinking or existentialism. It all amounts to reliance on the great father figure, the state. Hence the rise of “we know best” governance and our freedoms and liberties vanishing before our eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Do you not believe in the virus, or in the vaccine, or both?

Hi Denny,

Most of my views/concerns are further back in the thread regarding Cov19, which is becoming a long one which discusses many topics, including JFK. In short, I believe in the existence of the pathogen in question and I am pro-vaccines that are safe and work (i’ve had approximately 10). What I am seeing is the biggest financial racket of our time, combined with perhaps the most powerful coercive propaganda campaign in history. I think the direction we are taking is deeply concerning in regard to authoritarianism/technocracy. 

Thanks

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...