Only Lone Nuts Need Apply

[W. Niederhut]

    Here's Russ Baker's new article in a series at WhoWhatWhy.com about his experiences with Family of Secrets, and mainstream media suppression of political truth-- along the lines of Joseph McBride's work on the subject.

Only Lone Nuts Need Apply: The Media’s Antipathy to Deeper Digs - WhoWhatWhy

August 22, 2022

[Michael Griffith]

I'm sorry, but I think he should have known better than to associate with Alex Jones.  Among other craziness, after 9/11/2001, Jones joined the bizarre 9/11 "Truther" movement in claiming that the WTC towers were destroyed by "controlled demolitions." Disturbingly, several other JFK assassination researchers also began peddling this garbage. This did enormous damage to the cause of spreading the truth about JFK's death.

 

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I'm sorry, but I think he should have known better than to associate with Alex Jones.  Among other craziness, after 9/11/2001, Jones joined the bizarre 9/11 "Truther" movement in claiming that the WTC towers were destroyed by "controlled demolitions." Disturbingly, several other JFK assassination researchers also began peddling this garbage. This did enormous damage to the cause of spreading the truth about JFK's death.

 

Michael,

     I'm hardly an apologist for Alex Jones, for the reasons investigative journalist Russ Baker mentions in his new article, but the Baker article isn't really about Alex Jones.  It's about M$M censorship of inconvenient truths, and the fact that serious scholars of the JFK assassination, 9/11, and other CIA/military ops have often had to seek publicity through non-mainstream media sources.  Baker's book about the Bush dynasty, Family of Secrets, is one of the most interesting books I've read during the past decade, an opinion shared by Gore Vidal, himself.

     As for 9/11, the scientific evidence for explosive demolitions of the WTC is overwhelming, and I say that as a guy who used to tutor physics at an Ivy League college.

     I don't know if you have a scientific background but, if you want to educate yourself about the widely suppressed scientific data on 9/11, here are some high quality references on the subject.  (Be aware that disinformation about 9/11 on-line is ubiquitous and surfaces on Google searches.)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth | WTC Twin Towers and Building 7 (ae911truth.org)

https://911research.wtc7.net/

 

     WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 all collapsed symmetrically into their own footprints at near free fall acceleration on 9/11 -- indicating zero resistance to free fall collapse.

     The steel substructures had to be explosively demolished, (as opposed to progressive, gravitational "pancaking" of floors.)

     Additionally, you can readily observe (and hear) the serial explosions that demolished WTC1 and WTC2 on film and audio recordings-- which were also described by numerous witnesses.

[Ron Bulman]

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

    Here's Russ Baker's new article in a series at WhoWhatWhy.com about his experiences with Family of Secrets, and mainstream media suppression of political truth-- along the lines of Joseph McBride's work on the subject.

Only Lone Nuts Need Apply: The Media’s Antipathy to Deeper Digs - WhoWhatWhy

August 22, 2022

Great article W.  Family of Secrets is also a great book.  This does dovetail quite well with Joseph McBride's "Political Truth, the Media and the Assassination of President Kennedy".

Right there at the bottom of the page of the article you linked is another Baker article on Alex Jones which should be read in tandem with the one above.

"They (MSM) created the space that allowed him to devolve into the monster we know today".

Who Made Alex Jones? - WhoWhatWhy 

[Michael Griffith]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Michael,

     I'm hardly an apologist for Alex Jones, for the reasons investigative journalist Russ Baker mentions in his new article, but the Baker article isn't really about Alex Jones.  It's about M$M censorship of inconvenient truths, and the fact that serious scholars of the JFK assassination, 9/11, and other CIA/military ops have often had to seek publicity through non-mainstream media sources.  Baker's book about the Bush dynasty, Family of Secrets, is one of the most interesting books I've read during the past decade, an opinion shared by Gore Vidal, himself.

     As for 9/11, the scientific evidence for explosive demolitions of the WTC is overwhelming, and I say that as a guy who used to tutor physics at an Ivy League college.

     I don't know if you have a scientific background but, if you want to educate yourself about the widely suppressed scientific data on 9/11, here are some high quality references on the subject.  (Be aware that disinformation about 9/11 on-line is ubiquitous and surfaces on Google searches.)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth | WTC Twin Towers and Building 7 (ae911truth.org)

https://911research.wtc7.net/

 

     WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 all collapsed symmetrically into their own footprints at near free fall acceleration on 9/11 -- indicating zero resistance to free fall collapse.

     The steel substructures had to be explosively demolished, (as opposed to progressive, gravitational "pancaking" of floors.)

     Additionally, you can readily observe (and hear) the serial explosions that demolished WTC1 and WTC2 on film and audio recordings-- which were also described by numerous witnesses.

This is the kind of stuff that our critics love to see, because it gives them powerful ammo to tar-brush all pro-conspiracy authors. This kind of stuff being voiced by pro-conspiracy assassination researchers is part of the reason that so many educated people shy away from even considering evidence of a JFK assassination plot. It is almost as bad as arguing that JFK was killed by a conspiracy and then denying the Holocaust--no matter how good the conspiracy evidence is, no one will consider it when they hear Holocaust denial lumped in with it. 

No, there is no scientific evidence that any of the WTC towers were brought down with controlled explosions. This fiction has been destroyed, utterly destroyed.

Before I link to some good resources on this issue, allow me to note that the 9/11 "Truthers" also claim that a missile, not a jetliner, hit the Pentagon. Well, sorry, but a friend of mine was a Pentagon police officer on 9/11, and after the explosion, he saw the jetliner's fuselage inside the giant hole, and he helped clear out some of the wreckage. Moreover, hundreds of people saw the jetliner flying very low and heading toward the Pentagon. If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, where is Barbara Olson? (Hint: Her remains were eventually identified among the jetliner's debris.)

Some good sources on why the WTC towers fell:

What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York? | Journal of Engineering Mechanics | Vol 134, No 10 (ascelibrary.org)

The biggest 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked | Sky HISTORY TV Channel

NIST and the World Trade Center (archive.org) (the full NIST report)

Debunking 9/11 Myths - Frequently Asked Questions - Conspiracy Theories (popularmechanics.com)

Another blow for WTC conspiracy theorists | Machine Design

Were Twin Towers felled by chemical blasts? (Update) (phys.org)

Here's a book on the subject:

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts: Popular Mechanics, Dunbar, David, Reagan, Brad, McCain, John: 9781588166357: Amazon.com: Books

Here's a good short video on the subject:

And a longer video:

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories | Mick West | Center for Inquiry

[W. Niederhut]

Michael,

     You've posted a long list of the ubiquitous media disinformation on the subject of the WTC demolitions.   This pseudo-scientific bunk about 9/11 is everywhere on the internet, and in the U.S. mainstream media, and has been for the past 20 years-- a firehose of falsehoods propaganda technique.

     The problem is that people need to understand Newtonian physics and chemistry to really understand why it's pseudo-scientific bunk, and they also need to put aside their a priori assumption-- created by our mainstream media propaganda -- that the official Bush/Cheney/Zelikow narrative about 9/11 is true.

     That's not easy to do, because the false 9/11 narrative has been aggressively repeated in the mainstream media for 20 years-- beginning almost immediately after the first WTC Tower was hit by a plane on 9/11, when Kissinger & Associates CEO L. Paul Bremer immediately appeared on CNN to tell America that "Osama Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda" were responsible for the attack on the WTC.  (Ehud Barak repeated the same talking point that day on BBC television, and Henry Kissinger repeated it on Sky Television.)

     The most prominent example of the original pseudo-scientific 9/11 narrative (along with the original Bezant paper) was the NIST Report.  It's pure pseudo-scientific bunk-- an alleged computer "simulation" of the WTC demolitions, for which the U.S. government-affiliated authors refused to even publish the parameters used for their computer "simulation."  Nor did they even comment on the obvious explosions-- visible and audible on film.

     Imagine spending taxpayer millions on an alleged computer "simulation" while refusing to publish the parameters used in the "simulation!"  It's absurd.

     Nor did the NIST guys even pretend to explain the observed, total, free fall collapse of WTC7 on 9/11.  Their "model" only described an office fire scenario in which an upper floor theoretically collapsed onto a lower floor-- not what happened.  Study the film.  The distance between WTC7 floors remained constant as the entire 47 floor structure collapsed abruptly in a free fall. *  It was an expert demolition, as Danny Jowenko observed.

     Have you studied physics in high school, college, or on a post-graduate level?

     Let's keep it simple.  

     If something-- a rock, or a building-- falls to earth at the acceleration of gravity (32 ft/s2) what is the resistance to acceleration?  Zero.  By definition.

     Ergo, the steel substructures of the WTC towers had to be rapidly, explosive demolished-- all the way down to the ground level.

     And all of the actual data supports that fact-- including the film and suppressed witness testimony about the serial explosions and visible molten steel.

     (Jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to liquify steel, which was flowing "like a foundry" at Ground Zero.)

 

* Below: The abrupt, free fall collapse of WTC7 on 9/11-- no "pancaking" of floors

     

Edited August 24, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Richard Price]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

No, there is no scientific evidence that any of the WTC towers were brought down with controlled explosions. This fiction has been destroyed, utterly destroyed.

Not that W. needs any help on this, but you can add me to the list of people who DON"T believe your proof.  I have watched/read quite a few of the articles and associated investigatory books, etc.  The two links listed in W's response are well documented and presented.  Anyone who can clear their mind of all the clutter and "facts" as posited by the M$M can learn quite a lot pretty quickly.  There are admittedly a lot of kooks who present wild ideas (conspiracies), but if you are truly devoted to finding truth in all matters, you must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Charles Blackmon]

When someone can prove to me there was no thermite detected in the smoldering tower remains I will maybe stop having doubts about the 9/11 story.

[Ron Bulman]

I imagine the next question would be.  "Huh, what is thermite?"

[Micah Mileto]

Will that be Dallas on the dreaded 60th anniversary?

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, Tink Thompson worked on a case regarding WTC7, and spent a significant amount of time researching what occurred. He posted a link to his report to shut down James Fetzer, who had filled the JFK assassination forum with dozens of posts claiming the twin towers were taken down by controlled demolitions, and the planes people saw were holograms.

I would trust Tink's judgment and insight over a hundred Fetzers any old day. Well, in his report he presented numerous views of the building which showed that it had essentially been hollowed out. IOW, that one angle which appears to show an intact building being demolished is misleading, as a large percentage of the building behind that facade had already been burned or destroyed by falling debris. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Chris Bristow]

I was always baffled by the claim that the WTC fell at a free fall rate. When you can see the debris falling off the sides and falling faster than the WTC it makes you wonder how they could make that claim.

The other claim about the exhaust from explosions blasting out windows and blowing smoke out didn't make a lot of sense either. if an entire floor collapses in about one second all the air inside it has to go somewhere very quickly.

[Benjamin Cole]

W-

Let's set aside how 9/11 collapsed.

FBI Director Robert Mueller led the investigation into the 9/11 event. Author David Ray Griffin, 9/11 truther, contends Mueller forcefully quashed a real investigation into 9/11 --shades of the Warren Commission.

OK, let's buy in: Mueller is a Deep State apparatchik willing to abide by the murder of 3,000 Americans in order to promote military invasions of the Mideast. How low can you go?  Mueller's total lack of ethics---well, Trump looks pleasant in comparison. Trump was never an accessory after the fact to the murder of anybody, let alone 3,000 innocent office-dwellers. 

Of course, Robert Mueller pops up again, leading the Russiagate investigation into Trump, which has been called an "elaborate hoax" by NYT'er Bret Stephens, a view also held by Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Mate.

So...now you trust an investigation by Mueller?  

Might you be skeptical of Mueller's motives and standards in his Russiagate investigation? 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

I'll just say one more thing about the crazy 9/11 controlled-demolition theory. Logically, it makes no sense whatsoever. What would the alleged plotters have rationally hoped to gain by blowing up the WTC towers after they were struck by two huge jetliners? The jetliners did enormous damage to the Twin Towers. The majority of the people who died in the North Tower were above the impact point and died of smoke inhalation, burns, and flying debris. The death toll in the South Tower was half that of the North Tower, and would have been even lower if a full evacuation had been ordered after the North Tower was struck.

So what would have been the logical objective of using explosives after the jetliners struck? Why didn't the plotters blow up the North Tower minutes after the jetliner hit it, to ensure maximum casualties?

Similarly, why didn't the plotters blow up the South Tower right after the jetliner hit it, to ensure maximum casualties? Instead, we are asked to believe that for some reason the plotters waited to set off the explosives in the South Tower until hundreds of people had exited the tower after the jetliner struck it. Why? That makes no sense. If the overall purpose of the plotters was to enrage the American public, why would they have passed up the chance to kill hundreds of additional people in the South Tower? 

On the other hand, to complete the double-whammy, why would any plotters have thought that killing a few hundred additional people would significantly increase the public's rage? Whether the death toll was 2,900 or 2,000 or 1,500, the public's outrage would have been identical. So either way, the alleged plotters' supposed actions make no sense. 

And why on earth would the alleged plotters have bothered blowing up WTC 7 at all, much less long after it had been evacuated? Again, it just makes no sense. 

 

[Charles Blackmon]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I imagine the next question would be.  "Huh, what is thermite?"

Microsoft Word - Jones_TOCPJ (benthamopen.com)

In this exhaustive study the conclusion is that "the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material. " Pretty compelling!