Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is Spike Lee the Oliver Stone of 9/11 Truth?


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I think the guy arrested and still held in Guantanamo, who are govt thinks was the organizer of the 9/11 attack, is a patsy. 
my only problem with the 9/11 ‘truthers’ is that they focus on melting steel, controlled demolitions, building 7. We will argue about those things forever. Far more interesting to me are the redacted pages on Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 Commission report, Senator Bob Graham’s dissension on that issue (he is the much younger brother of WAPO’s Phil Graham) and his subsequent fictional novel. If anyone has read Bernard Levy’s book on Daniel Pearl’s Pakistan kidnapping, it’s the British born Pakistani that arranged that kidnapping who should be looked at. But we all know of US blind eye to Pakistan, who after all created the Taliban. No one wants to look. Like with JFK, we spend little time on Who done it. 

Paul,

      I sound like a broken record, but the scientific evidence of explosive demolitions is overwhelming.

      In fact, the explosive demolitions are not even a "theory" at this point.  They are a matter of scientific fact.

      There's a reason why the M$M is aggressively smearing Spike Lee and the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth this week.

      (BTW, Jeff, although the U.S. government, incredibly, never conducted a forensic/arson examination of Ground Zero, while hastily destroying the evidence, there have been independent scientific examinations of the Ground Zero debris.  That chemical evidence is discussed at the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.)

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-engineering-and-science-publications/106-active-thermitic-material-discovered-in-dust-from-the-9-11-world-trade-center-catastrophe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From Slate:

"As it stands now, Episode 4 appears to be exactly 30 minutes shorter than the original version that I watched on Monday, coming in at 90 minutes long instead of two hours. Indeed, the entire segment on the 9/11 conspiracy group, and all apparent references to the group, appear to have been excised.

[...]

"Thank you, Spike! It’s nice to see people actually do the right thing."

https://slate.com/culture/2021/08/spike-lee-hbo-documentary-series-trutherism-edited.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highly doubt the reporters for the NY Times, Vanity Fair, Slate, Salon, etc hold, independently, strong opinions about Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, let alone have ever thought deeply about the official explanations of the events. So this has the look of a coordinated effort to assert the primacy of the Official Story ahead of the 20th anniversary with the promise that all disbelievers - whether merely asking questions or not - will face the wrath of the Establishment in the form of public debasement by the MSM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Highly doubt the reporters for the NY Times, Vanity Fair, Slate, Salon, etc hold, independently, strong opinions about Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, let alone have ever thought deeply about the official explanations of the events. So this has the look of a coordinated effort to assert the primacy of the Official Story ahead of the 20th anniversary with the promise that all disbelievers - whether merely asking questions or not - will face the wrath of the Establishment in the form of public debasement by the MSM.

But, I mean, what does the Spike Lee self-censorship say to a young person like me, who spent all of Covid researching the great historical novel of 9/11?  Where are my role models?  My opportunity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Well, this is truly historic, folks--  an orchestrated, full-court press by key players in the U.S. mainstream media to suppress the scientific evidence of the explosive WTC demolitions, and to falsely impugn the reputations and research of thousands of accredited architects and engineers who have thoroughly debunked the bogus NIST computer "simulation" of the 9/11 demolitions.

      The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are not kooky "conspiracy theorists."  They are physicists, architects, and engineers.  They have reputable academic and professional credentials.  Why won't these M$M propagandists tell America the truth about that fact?

      What the M$M is doing this week is comparable to their suppression and misrepresentation of the evidence in the JFK assassination case, (including the Zapruder film) and the coordinated media denigration of JFKA "truthers" like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone.

      Who is onboard with this anti-9/11 Truth disinformation campaign?  Practically everyone-- from Slate, NYT, WaPo, Vanity Fair to Variety.

      In effect, these M$M players are covering for the perpetrators of the 9/11 op.

Spike Lee’s 9/11 Doc Didn’t Just Include Conspiracy Theories—It Promoted Them

A rundown of what exactly NYC Epicenters 9/11 → 2021 ½ contained before Lee decided, thankfully, to recut it.

How anyone with eyes can watch the twin towers disintegrate into plumes of ash and not know that it's an engineered event has always been beyond my understanding. 

Edited by Robert Burrows
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the raw opinions of any "expert" should be considered in the debate around the collapse - the dynamics behind this kind of stuff seems to be at the limit of human knowledge. Multiple, contradictory theories of how the Towers naturally collapsed have been published, so the answer to most of the physics questions seems to be "nobody knows".

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

I don't think the raw opinions of any "expert" should be considered in the debate around the collapse - the dynamics behind this kind of stuff seems to be at the limit of human knowledge. Multiple, contradictory theories of how the Towers naturally collapsed have been published, so the answer to most of the physics questions seems to be "nobody knows".

Dead wrong, Micah.

Have you studied physics and chemistry over the years?

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Highly doubt the reporters for the NY Times, Vanity Fair, Slate, Salon, etc hold, independently, strong opinions about Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, let alone have ever thought deeply about the official explanations of the events. So this has the look of a coordinated effort to assert the primacy of the Official Story ahead of the 20th anniversary with the promise that all disbelievers - whether merely asking questions or not - will face the wrath of the Establishment in the form of public debasement by the MSM.

Bingo.   And I noticed that these M$M journalists are using the same lame, erroneous talking points to smear the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth-- e.g., referring to them as "controversial conspiracy theorists," rather than accredited scientists and engineers.  Nor do they acknowledge that thousands of accredited architects, engineers, and academicians from the U.S. and other countries are affiliated with the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Another propaganda strategy they are using is to lump the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth into a category with QAnon.  Total false equivalence.

P.S.  Micah, you need to do some serious remedial reading on the scientific research literature.  Here's a link.

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bingo.   And I noticed that these M$M journalists are using the same lame, erroneous talking points to smear the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth-- e.g., referring to them as "controversial conspiracy theorists," rather than accredited scientists and engineers.  Nor do they acknowledge that thousands of accredited architects, engineers, and academicians from the U.S. and other countries are affiliated with the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

W., (I hate to call you by that since it is forever associated with a former President of dubious [pun intended] distinction), you make very good points.  For a long time after 9/11, I didn't give much thought to the "conspiracy theories", then once I retired I began to read again and to watch/look up any subjects that interested me.  I have long been one to want to learn about anything that I don't know much/anything about, particularly if it is history related.  I first read some articles I found online, then followed up with videos from various sources (mostly YouTube).  One of the first videos I watched was a long one by someone affiliated with A&E for 9/11 Truth.  While I had to do further research after watching it (some of it was above my pay grade), I found that most, if not all the data and reasoning presented was damning and above reproach by those with an open and unbiased mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

W., (I hate to call you by that since it is forever associated with a former President of dubious [pun intended] distinction), you make very good points.  For a long time after 9/11, I didn't give much thought to the "conspiracy theories", then once I retired I began to read again and to watch/look up any subjects that interested me.  I have long been one to want to learn about anything that I don't know much/anything about, particularly if it is history related.  I first read some articles I found online, then followed up with videos from various sources (mostly YouTube).  One of the first videos I watched was a long one by someone affiliated with A&E for 9/11 Truth.  While I had to do further research after watching it (some of it was above my pay grade), I found that most, if not all the data and reasoning presented was damning and above reproach by those with an open and unbiased mind.

Richard,

     There's some quality research about 9/11 out there, including the work of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 

     It has been completely blacked out of the mainstream U.S. media for 20 years now. 

     That's why it's so frustrating to watch Spike Lee being pressured this week to delete his HBO series interviews with the Architects & Engineers.

     The guys who did 9/11 are, obviously, using all of their media resources to keep the American people from learning about the scientific evidence debunking the official government narrative about 9/11.

     It's analogous to Henry Luce and C.D. Jackson arranging in 1963 to lock up the Zapruder film for years, so that the American public wouldn't know that the fatal head shot was fired from in front and right of the limo.

     And, ironically, the Architects & Engineers aren't even "conspiracy theorists" per se-- as claimed by WaPo, Vanity Fair, Jeremy Stahl at Slate, et.al.    Their research focus is not on theories about who "conspired" to demolish the World Trade Center on 9/11.  It is simply focused on the scientific evidence of controlled demolitions.

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

There is just too much disagreement among the relevant experts, I think it's better for people to view the physics behind this issue as "nobody knows". The physics of collapsing buildings is an obscure and complex subject.

 

Compare this to how it might be easy to create a model of a flat piece of paper, but even computers have had trouble explaining how a piece of paper can be crunched up into a ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

There is just too much disagreement among the relevant experts, I think it's better for people to view the physics behind this issue as "nobody knows". The physics of collapsing buildings is an obscure and complex subject.

 

Micah,

      The precise opposite is the case.  I used to tutor undergrads in physics when I was in college, and one of the things I liked about physics is its mathematical precision.

      The physics of the WTC demolitions is actually quite simple.  If a rock, or a steel skyscraper, collapses in a free fall, (i.e., at the acceleration of gravity) the resistance to collapse must, necessarily, be zero.  Any resistance would interfere with free fall acceleration.

     In other words, something that could demolish steel had to abruptly, symmetrically demolish all of the massive steel sub-structures of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11.  All three buildings collapsed symmetrically into their foundations at virtual free fall acceleration.

     Trickling jet fuel "weakening" steel beams on a few upper level floors would not have sufficed to abruptly demolish the entire lower level steel substructures, as observed.  (Besides, you can readily observe the explosive pulverizations of WTC1 and WTC2 on film.)

     The NIST Report was a fraudulent, multi-million dollar government cover up-- a putative computer "simulation" of the WTC demolitions for which the government authors refused to publish the parameters they used in their "simulation."  It's an approach to computer simulations that a friend of mine from the RAND Corporation used to jokingly call, "MOT"-- the "Modified Output Technique."  You insert the parameters that you need, however unrealistic, to achieve a desired outcome.

     Again, if you're truly interested in learning about the science of the WTC demolitions, study the "Evidence" articles at the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.

     Lord knows, you won't ever learn about it in the U.S. mainstream media... 🤥

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview

 

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Micah,

      The precise opposite is the case.  I used to tutor undergrads in physics when I was in college, and one of the things I liked about physics is its mathematical precision.

      The physics of the WTC demolitions is actually quite simple.  If a rock, or a steel skyscraper, collapses in a free fall, (i.e., at the acceleration of gravity) the resistance to collapse must, necessarily, be zero.  Any resistance would interfere with free fall acceleration.

     In other words, something that could demolish steel had to abruptly, symmetrically demolish all of the massive steel sub-structures of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11.  All three buildings collapsed symmetrically into their foundations at virtual free fall acceleration.

     Trickling jet fuel "weakening" steel beams on a few upper level floors would not have sufficed to abruptly demolish the entire lower level steel substructures, as observed.  (Besides, you can readily observe the explosive pulverizations of WTC1 and WTC2 on film.)

     The NIST Report was a fraudulent, multi-million dollar government cover up-- a putative computer "simulation" of the WTC demolitions for which the government authors refused to publish the parameters they used in their "simulation."  It's an approach to computer simulations that a friend of mine from the RAND Corporation used to jokingly call, "MOT"-- the "Modified Output Technique."  You insert the parameters that you need, however unrealistic, to achieve a desired outcome.

     Again, if you're truly interested in learning about the science of the WTC demolitions, study the "Evidence" articles at the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.

     Lord knows, you want ever learn about it in the U.S. mainstream media... 🤥

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview

 

 

When it comes to convincing other people that this issue is worth a government re-investigation, I'd say go with the "nobody knows" approach, especially since it is not good to come off like it's downplaying the complexity of a technical subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HA HA HA. Look at how quickly he reeled that back in. He's already cut half an hour from the episode and is being quoted backpedaling.

Guess for a minute there he forgot what world he's living in, and forgot what is and is not acceptable to believe.

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...