9/11 TV News Archive Streaming video of all major network news coverage on 9/11/01
9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud Free PDF of an excellent and concise book summarizing the case against the official story.
David Chandler's YouTube Channel Must watch videos analyzing the explosive demolition of the twin towers and WTC7, produced by high school physics teacher David Chandler whose work forced a revision to NIST's final report on the WTC.
Council for the National Interest Group founded by Congressmen Paul Findley and Paul McCloskey to promote pro-American (instead of exclusively pro-Israeli) middle east policies in the U.S. government.
Popular Mechanics: "Debunking 9/11 Myths" The most often cited critique of 9/11 Truth, or defense of the official version of events. Fails to address most real concerns adequately.
Money Masters Documentary on the corrupt money system
This "new user" Chis@ poses as a believer in the explosive demolition "theory" in order to allow the regular gang of idiots to spout all their talking points about how it's not proven, etc. Towards the end "she" reveals via a linked article that she reads David Icke's site. Oh ho HO! See how bad these demolition-heads are??
Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: Why demolition after plane attack?
This question has probably been asked many times already, but I've watched many videos about 9/11 online and searched this forum a bit and couldn't find the answer:
Why would the 9/11 conspirators go as far as demolishing all three buildings after the planes attack and risk being caught by almost anyone who had a cell phone or video camera to record the obvious controlled demolition?
IMO this plan was pretty stupid, it's obvious that these towers fell by controlled demolition, more so true with WTC7 and my other question is what's the official gov. theory as to why this tower collapsed? It wasn't hit by a plane like the other two.
The first time I saw the collapse, I knew right away those were not by accident, the fire didn't even burn long enough and why would we need demolition experts to bring a building neatly straight down through a lot of calculations and preparations, if this could be achieved haphazardly!?
My husband disagrees with me, he holds the naive belief 'why would a head of a state conspire to murder its own citizens?'
I totally get the demolition part, but why? Isn't a plane attack enough to get the country into war against so-called terrorism?
Some insight into the criminal mind would be much appreciated.
Arcterus
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 615
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:46 pm Post subject:
Just so we're clear, not everyone on this board is in favor of CD, or at least promotion of CD. Even less of us support focusing on speculative issues like this. But I will answer your question as best I can, but all under the pretext that this is just speculation.
The psychological factor, in particular. As I spend a great deal of time in New York, I can tell you that the image of the towers falling down and being pulverized is very fresh in many peoples' minds. If a plane crashes into the towers and still kills most people in the tower, then it's still a tragedy, but what happens then? Repairs are made, memorials are built, funerals are held, etc... but with the total destruction of the towers, that's an image that will stay in your minds forever. It's symbolic, in a way, that everything is lost and the impact of an attack on American soil.
As for WTC7, this held a great deal of government departments. Were there certain documents in there? Maybe. If so, copying the destruction would be an effective way of destroying them.
But to be clear, none of this can be proven, and I'm just humoring you. I don' think this is something we should spend too much time speculating about. There are other issues to be promoted that are more effective against the public and are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, things that strongly point towards some level of complicity. Read here for more:
What was interesting was how much was caught on camera. They didn't hit them simultaneously, or at night, etc. It was done for maximal viewing.
Assuming it was a demolition -- and I do support the idea that it was, as someone who has a degree in architecture and has worked in architecture on high-rise office building projects -- notice the timing of the destruction events: Not too soon so they couldn't be caught on film, not too late so people have turned away, nor at night. Perfect timing, with all the people having to run on the pavement to get out of there.
Imagine the difference if none of the impacts and destruction were caught on film, and only the two buildings were standing there in the morning with blackened holes. A disaster with unimaginable numbers to deal with in terms of reconstruction, and none of the hype.
Blackened holes has hardly the force of the orange balls of flames over and over. And over.
What I emphasize is that this event in Manhattan was the core target of 9/11. It was the core of the psychological assault of the attack, and it was the event that really shocked people. I mean the Pentagon was shocking in that what you would think be the most heavily defended building in the United States, or in the world for that that matter, was only eleven miles from Andrews Air Force Base with two combat-ready fighter wings, was hit almost an hour and a half after the crisis began and they couldn't even get up an interceptor to protect the Pentagon. I mean that's pretty shocking. But note that the Pentagon attack happened before the first of the tower collapses, so I think if you consider the whole event from the point of view of a psychologically engineered attack in order to shock people and to make people feel disempowered and to make people feel afraid and sign off on whatever the government wants to do in terms of international aggression or whatever. The core of this whole event is Manhattan that's where more than ten times as many people died, in Manhattan, than in the other two parts of the crime scene: like in Washington, D.C. and in the crash field in Pennsylvania.
KR: This is not just another government-sponsored false-flag event, like the Gulf of Tonkin or many others. But it's more of a psychological operation aimed at a large audience.
TH: But again, why bring down the buildings? The planes were enough to horrify us.
KR: They needed people to be in front of the TV, is what it looks like. So, if the buildings are rigged for demolition, it doesn't matter – there’s a demolition team there, it doesn't matter where the buildings are hit – they’re rigged for demolition. And if you wait an hour or so until everybody’s in front of the TV, then the psychological effect is there. And that's what drives the emotionally driven 9/11 wars. You know, if something just happened to a building – something had happened to a building before. The embassies in Africa that were blown up, right?
TH: The World Trade Center was blown up, it just didn't –
KR: The World Trade Center was blown up. The Oklahoma City building was blown up. Lots of buildings have been blown up, but they didn't result in generating endless wars that are supposed to protect us from terrorism, which is an oxymoron to begin with. You know, it just doesn't make any sense. So, what makes sense is that those people with the power to make this happen, to allow an effective stand down of our air defenses, to allow these hijackers to get lucky at every single turn, to essentially have access to, and the means to, bring those buildings down – those are the people who are much more likely to have effected the crimes.
I agree that we should not put a lot of time into unprovable speculations, but since a lot of people reject any investigation of 9/11 at all by convincing themselves through a priori arguments that our concerns are misplaced, I think it's well that we have ready answers.
Anybody who does outreach on the street knows all the arguments:
Somebody would have talked.
It would have taken a conspiracy of thousands.
Bush wasn't smart enough to pull it off.
The liberal media would have been all over it.
There's no reason to blow up the World Trade Center when plane crashes alone made a cause for war.
I agree that plane crashes alone would not have created the watershed event that changed the world forever and geared Americans up for a 20-year war and made us ready to abandon our Bill of Rights. Had the burned towers stood (with their entry wounds so reminiscent of the spear wound in Jesus's chest) they would have been a monument to strength and endurance--and to the Bush administration's negligence. Only their total destruction could make them symbols of the fragility of civilization in the face of religious fanatics with box cutters; and make that ubiquitous object of civilization, the airliner, a fearsome object all across America; and make air travel a privilege, not a right.
John Judge has said that the real message of the JFK assassination was "We can kill the President in broad daylight and nobody can do anything about it. Be afraid." If so, perhaps the real message of 9/11 is "We can blow up the World Trade Center on TV and nobody can do anything about it. Give it up."
As long as I'm speculating I'd like to riff on the cell-phone-camera theme with this fantasy: 9/11 had to be done in 2001 because the perps knew that technology would soon make it impossible to get away with it. You'd have people taking pictures on the impact floors and sending them by cell phone. Some people speculate that 9/11 was actually planned for Poppy Bush's second term, but Clinton's election spoiled that. The grand theory is that it was the need to accomplish 9/11 no later than 2001 that made stealing the 2000 election necessary to put Bush in place so it could happen. And happily, it looks like they were too late. The internet, the ability to propagate images and videos and collaborate with people all over the world, these ensure that they won't get away with it. 25,000 people signed the scholars' petition calling for the release of NIST's 6000 videos and 6000 photos. You couldn't get those signatures on the street. Only the internet allows that.
As to WTC7, and speaking of speculations, the government theory is that fires on floors 12 and 13 (the Security and Exchange Commission offices) burned so hot and so long that they heated up a set of floor beams and thermal expansion caused them to push a girder off its seat at one of the core columns. Supposedly the partial collapse of this one floor took down several floors beneath it, leaving this massive column without lateral support for several stories, causing it to buckle. This failing column then pulled down two adjacent core columns and the three of them pulled down the next three, and the next three and the next three and about 2/3 of the interior of the building fell down with virtually no sign on the exterior that anything untoward was going on. (I don't think there is any audio evidence of this internal collapse, either.) When the last few ranks of core columns began to fail their buckling caused all the perimeter columns to buckle simultaneously and evenly and the shell of the building came down as straight and even as if it were on rails. That's their story.
One structural engineer says (as I understand it) that the floor beams could not have got as hot as NIST says they did, and even if they did they would not have expanded as much as NIST says they did, and even if they did they would have sagged in the middle instead of pushing at the end, and even if they pushed at the end the shear studs would have kept the girder from falling off its seat, and even if it did the partial collapse of one floor would not have taken down the other floors, and even if it did the column would still be laterally restrained by girders on the west side and the south side so it would not buckle, and even if it did it would not pull down the columns next to it, and even if it did they would not pull down the next rank of columns.
Last edited by truebeleaguer on Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Arcterus
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 615
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:37 pm Post subject:
Quote:
but since a lot of people reject any investigation of 9/11 at all by convincing themselves through a priori arguments that our concerns are misplaced, I think it's well that we have ready answers.
Agreed, which is why I humored her and responded. I just don't want to get too wrapped up in it. It's a relatively pointless argument and too much speculating can only fuel it.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com
chis@
Joined: 13 Jun 2010
Posts: 3
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:12 am Post subject:
I believe if a person can't see that it's CD by watching the free fall of the towers for a few seconds than there's little left to convince them.
I'm not an expert in demolition or construction, but to have towers as tall as the twins free fall straight down like that - three buildings falling like if it was CD on the same day! What are the chances? 0.000...%?
We need a statistician to calculate that too.
Thank you for all your answers.
JohnA
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 810
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject:
chis@ wrote:
I believe if a person can't see that it's CD by watching the free fall of the towers for a few seconds than there's little left to convince them.
or the alternative:
anyone who thinks that it is a controlled demolition based purely on visual evidence is probably not open to the ideas of empirical evidence and science.
gee - it looks like the sun moves around the earth. i know it to be true because i can see it with my own eyes.
gee - it looks like Louis Pasteur must be insane because he claims invisible enemies - called germs - invade our bodies. I cannot see these germs with my own eyes - so they must not exist.
IMHO - all these claims that 'any child can see it was CD' really hurts the cause - because any adult can SEE that that is just not true.
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1297
Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:52 pm Post subject:
Quote:
all these claims that 'any child can see it was CD' really hurts the cause
Agreed.
Arcterus
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 615
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:58 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I believe if a person can't see that it's CD by watching the free fall of the towers for a few seconds than there's little left to convince them.
To clarify, the towers didn't come down at free fall. It was close, but not quite. Free fall would have been more like 9.2 seconds. The towers fell down at more like 14-17 seconds.
My advice: Never assume anything is definitive. CD is a theory, not a proven fact. The important thing to understand about science is that it is constantly built upon. I'm not saying anything about the strength of the CD theory, but since it is a theory it should not be promoted as fact. Evolution has a massive amount of support for it, but it remains a theory because, hypothetically, certain facts could arise that would require us to re-think our hypothesis. Evolution remains a scientifically-sound theory, but as there's nothing mathematical to set it in stone, it is open to change. CD is the same. No matter how strong you think it may be, CD remains possible. Not out of the question and not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but a valid possibility. But what if the official story is correct in how it came down? What if something else happened, something that nobody has thought of as a possibility? It only takes one new fact, one extra factor to put the entire hypothesis into question.
Just recently I was reading an article about how a reduction in calories has long been understood as something that can extend your lifespan and healthspan, but for some reason it doesn't help your aging rate. This was an anomaly that nobody understood. But after much research, we've possibly found an answer: there seems to be a link to a certain protein that may be too prevalent in a calorie-reduced diet.
We also do things without really understanding anything about them. For schizophrenics and those with similar disorders, doctors use anti-psychotic medications without really knowing how they work. We really have a very poor understanding of why this medication helps sometimes, but we keep researching and one day we will probably have it figured out.
My point is this: These avenues are well-worth researching and they may very well lead to something, but you should never prematurely accept it as fact because you never know what extra factors may lie ahead. Science is a very delicate process, so you have to handle it delicately.
_________________
truebeleaguer
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 551
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:56 pm Post subject:
chis@ wrote:
if a person can't see that it's CD by watching the free fall of the towers for a few seconds than there's little left to convince them.
So I guess tactically you're either suggesting that
a) large numbers of people have not seen the videos of the towers' demise and for all of us to bring DVD players to our street actions would be the best outreach technique
or
b) most people have seen the videos and if they haven't figured out by now that it's controlled demolition they never will, so the CD hypothesis is useless in outreach.
Also you seem to be suggesting that your engineering instincts are better than those of large numbers of engineers who have seen the videos and yet do not embrace CD theory--which would seem to be a rather weak argument outside the truth movement. Obviously at some point in the collapse the momentum of the falling debris exceeded the ability of the structure to resist it. The question is, where did that point begin?
Bazant claims it was very early in the collapse, when his theoretical piledriver theoretically leaped 3.7 meters and theoretically pounded the rest of the theoretical tower, floor by theoretical floor, into actual rubble.
Video evidence suggests it was considerably more complicated than that. I think the officials claimed (I can't remember where) that six floors falling together could take out the seventh floor beneath them--but of course the officials never addressed the question of how you get the six floors moving in the first place.
Between NIST's assumption that collapse initiation inevitably means total progressive collapse and Bazant's demonstration that once the collapse gets going there's no stopping it there's a great big question mark of how you get from a partial, local, and asymmetrical collapse initiation to an unstoppable symmetrical collapse "essentially in free fall" according to NIST.
JohnA
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 810
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:13 pm Post subject:
that makes my brain hurt
i'll just go with the "any child can see it's CD" strategy.
chis@
Joined: 13 Jun 2010
Posts: 3
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:22 pm Post subject:
I think comparing this incident to earth orbit and germs is far fetching, but you've made your point.
Even if the collapse was caused by fire, why would it fall straight down and not buckle before collapsing, and this happening 3 times in the same day. We know for sure that CD is basically designed to avoid damage to surrounding buildings so the structure is brought down on its footprint, unlike other natural disasters like earthquakes that tilt the building.
triforcharity - participating in this topic, siding with the 9/11 commission report, actually provided a news link of a 2 story building tilting but still holding the roof engulfed by fire, debunking his own position: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
If a 2 story building tilts like that, a 100+ story tower will certainly have greater tilting power: falling straight down has tons of resistance, falling sideways, almost none.
Since I see my name popping up several times I feel the need to respond on this topic.
What surprises me with the @Chis' contribution is the low response from other readers. But that's it for my concern. Why aren't we more focused on the outside, instead of blaming forces within the truth movement? We won't change a partner by demonizing it's efforts to speak truth. We just create the wrong awareness about troubles inside. The only parties who really enjoy this are those who fanatically defend the official story.
Why not being focused on our own quality and just picking issues about 9/11 that has substantial value? People from outside the movement (those we need to reach) with interest in what happened on 9/11 are not interested in quarrels that has no other perspective than being an endless repetition. I mean, it's horrible to see David Icke mentioned as a source in a discussion on a 'serious' 9/11 forum. But, hell, let that be their problem, we can't change it, only give attention to it and show the world that we're fighting each other.
Let's just be our own guide with good quality and the right audience will find us.
Submitted by juandelacruz on Fri, 2010-06-18 02:02.
In an ideal world that would be the way to go. But when disinfo such as Gold do their best to hog the limelight, then use that as a platform to misinform his audience, I think it becomes imperative on those who have not been fooled to call a spade a spade and a disinfo agent a disinfo agent.
On this obscure Chris person, yes we may be making a mountain out of a molehill. But on Albanese, Gold and other "outed" disinfo, I think it is good to keep the pressure up and offer them no quarters.
This is an information war, controlling the message is the name of the game. If we keep quiet on blatant disinfo campaigns, then we will lose.
Thank you sir :-) But yeah, I agree with juandelacruz, you cannot just let dishonest individuals within the 9/11 movement control the narrative. To just ignore them and only take on "official story" believers is not good enough. Because really, Gold and other obvious shills are in fact helping promote the main thrust of the official story anyway. They should not get a free pass to spew their bs just because they claim to be 9/11 activists.
You'll never succeed to fight disinformation this way, in my opinion. This will always end in a continuous fight that nobody from outside the 'movement' can understand the way it should. How many enemies can you have? From broader perspective it's just the same ordinary street-fight that is characteristic for many fading movements in the past.
Being right is worthless unless you'll get your truth acknowledged. Winning the information War is nothing else than creating strong and reliable stages for presenting facts that can speak for themselves. In presenting this information we can profile our reliability in compare with others.
This openly quarreling and niggle on people (beside the question who is right) will harm us enormously. Criticizing people is also much easier than providing solid articles. Plz don't underestimate the public!
Sorry for responding this late. Although I understand what you're talking about I'm still feeling the same concern. I'm afraid we lose the baby with the wash water when focusing on external sources within the truthmovement. That's for the simple fact that dissonant voices will keep popping up. That's how disinformation works. Another point is that 'disinformation' isn't always intended, therefore the understanding between parties will worsen, exactly the way the Sunsteins wants us to be.
It's the ideal mechanism to splitting apart a movement. IMHO we should replace ourselves much more into the mindsets of those we need to reach with our information. Those people will give up immediately when confronted with all this conflicting information.
I do not mean we should not criticize at all. But I sense a lot of crossness and disdain to some of our "colleges" within the movement. Critics should be professional, with a clean substantial and factual attitude. And like I said, the best way to spread information is to create your own channel based on your own quality standard. That's something newcomers do appreciate and they will stick to it.
[Added: with 'your own channel' I mean just in general to make the source you prefer as good as possible with reliable info. I guess "WTCDemolition.com" has everything to create something promising]
Please rethink the way we should fight disinformation within our own camp. We are just at the beginning of many efforts to split the movement. We should not be driven by our emotions but use cool tactics and some wisdom.
Other point of the same problem is this: we do have success in the case we try to bring forwards. Time seems on our side, but the people (I mean us in general) who try to spread the truth are just people, the same kind as in the real world ;-) When successes will occur many of them will claim a role. Arrogance and ego-centrism will occur.
I clearly experienced this while having a very large and informative 9/11 twitter account but never being followed by some particular 9/11 parties on twitter. I never understood this strange lack of solidarity and irrational refuse to grasp good info.
With my Dutch website same story. I have the largest and most informed website in Dutch language. Very factual with detailed information without many personal opinions, etc. Still after a few years some of the other Dutch 9/11 sites still didn't put a link on their site to serve their new visitors with this relevant information. I don't need them, don't misunderstand me. But for me it's very difficult to comprehend why those dudes have such a small attitude towards their own products. But this has nothing to do with conspiracy. Everything with ego.
In other words, we should not lose our cool. It's not about us. We are now in a decisive period and there should be only one focus: that's truth and not only about being right, but getting those facts acknowledged.
What do you do with obvious frauds who have been caught knowingly and purposefully lying and misrepresenting the truth over and over again? How much damage does a disinfo agent have to do before they are quarantined?
Take John Albanese, for instance. I'm sure by now you've read about the history of his blatant dishonesty and shill-like behavior, going back at least since 2006. Would you just let him continue to get away with his blatant disruptive and dishonest behavior and say, "we're one big happy family and everyone's cool, and if the truth movement is hijacked and thwarted by such individuals, oh well?"
At what point would you call a spade a spade and attempt to stop the destructive behavior?
You don't have to draw a line. Just fight the good fight! I mean, 1,000 "John Albaneses" will stand up if necessary if the movement becomes too strong. (sorry I know the name but that's all, can't judge the person) Will you fight them all? Don't you know that this kind of struggle is contagious, and that by doing this we do exactly what our worst enemies loves to see us doing?
This is what information war is about. Don't go for the easy solutions, cause it will result exactly in the kind of fragmentation that we try to prevent. It's not my intention to protect people or justify what some may do wrong. It's not about that.
The shills started the fragmentation and divisions and polarization with their dishonest disruptive and anti-truth behavior. It's too late to try to prevent fragmentation, but we can show people where the real divisions are and expose the frauds. But I'm not about to join in some fake unity with obvious frauds and liars. That will not help the movement in the least.
You didn't start it, but still want to go in the slipstream from those who did? You can't change your enemies and they're countless. Only thing you can do is showing the quality you have to convince people from the information you have. It's only about information, not opinions, not quarrels.
YOU know exactly about the problems you have with liars and dividers, but the people who fall into these discussions only see the quarrels and hook-of. They've seen it too often. 9/11 is too complicated in itself to present it with all this shit included.
In information war divider's main target is not the information itself, but the ego's from those who are involved in the movement. It's a psychological war. Don't fight the wrong fight, don't let yourself be tempted to fight that way. In information war the best tactics are those who let the targets produce their own disinformation. That's clean, save and profitable.
It's like the way how people demand their government to protect them when some terrorist attack did occur. They get mad. Then they will have their protection and their wars. Almost everybody happy.
Submitted by juandelacruz on Tue, 2010-06-22 00:58.
I think you do not know the history of this website. Most of us here started out using reasoned arguments to point out what was bad info from the shills that were in 911blogger. What this resulted to was us getting thrown out of 911blogger by the mods who were protecting exactly the people that we are criticizing now for being shills.
You can disagree, that is your prerogative. If you mix with Albanese and Gold, you will find out for yourself why we point them out for what they are.
They are not that many, but they are well organized and probably, well funded. There are more potential truthers, which is why these groups or individuals are trying to subvert the many to believe their lihop narrative. The end game I think is to pin the blame on a subset of the culprits or perhaps on entirely innocent patsys as the plan always was, and in so doing negate the consequences of the truth movement on the real perpetrators of 9-11.
Lets put it this way, groups and individual's like Richard Gage's AE911truth is running the clean campaign, they present nothing beyond the evidence of controlled demolition and stick to calls for an investigation.
The shills of 911blogger and truthaction are doing what they can to downplay the importance of controlled demolition and driving the focus towards Arab and Muslim terrorism, and government incompetence and also away from Zionist involvement. They also try to talk dirty of the first group when they can although I have never seen the first group engage this band of disinfo agents.
We are running interference for the first group by pointing out the dishonesty of the second group and also go further than the first group by being willing to speculate a bit on who did commit 9-11. While our evidence may be circumstantial or else even historical interpretations - not finger print evidence, we do have a substantial body of material supporting our views. If it weren't for the focus that we bring on the real perps, and the dishonesty of the shill trying to muddy up the facts, the perpetrators of 9-11 will never be caught and will likely commit the same crime in the future.
Very well put and I completely agree. To ignore the obvious shills is negligence. To Frank I would say-you do NOT want the Albanese' of the world to control the narrative. You don't really want anybody to do that but that is exactly what will happen if these people are not called out as needed. They feel the same way about most of(probably all of) us anyway.
your dutch website leaves a bit to be desired as well. it (ur website)seems perfectly constructed to support muzzle-ums involvement. are you of the mindset that crazy arabs played a significant role in the physical damage that day?
...anonymous. what about Frank's website seems "perfectly constructed to support muzzle-ums involvement"? I don't read Dutch and haven't looked at an online translated version of his site--what do you see there that concerns you?
Submitted by juandelacruz on Tue, 2010-06-22 15:36.
You shouldn't trust anyone in this movement that you do not know personally, including me.
But, I wouldn't be too hasty to judge someone I come across for the first time either, including some who may be passing bad info.
Most of the characters pointed out as shills on this site usually earned their reputation by being repeatedly unwilling to change their opinion and/or message despite obvious good info to the contrary. It is like NIST saying that there was no controlled demolition at WTC despite overwhelming evidence indicating that there was.
Someone like Jon Gold is impossible to convince about controlled demolition no matter how much evidence you present to him. I think he is paid to pretend that he does not understand controlled demolition.
Most other people however, including me I admit at one time or another held and promoted views that later turned out to be based on bad info. When presented with better info, I change my mind.
With the shills, when better info comes out about a topic, controlled demolition for example, the louder they say controlled demolition is not important or that they understand it less. That's how we spot them. It's not so hard, but you have to be familiar with them a bit over time.
An example is NYCActivist. I don't know if this is a real person or an online experiment by the perps. This self claimed scientist (on the net, you can be anyone) started out believing in controlled demo. Slowly she turns to be skeptical of CD. Finally she says she is convinced there was no CD.
Nothing wrong if there was evidence against CD coming out over time, but on the contrary, around that time,there were discoveries supporting CD. She just seemed to go against good evidence, which made her lose credibility.
When CD finally got the solid support of the truth movement, her blog just stopped getting updates. Her character must have gotten untenable because she was marketed as an intellectual who knew science. No self respecting scientist would argue against free fall collapse as evidence of CD.
"It is like NIST saying that there was no controlled demolition at WTC despite overwhelming evidence indicating that there was."
And I'm sure many people would argue that whether or not we agree with NIST, it is beyond the pale to suggest that they are lying or part of some vast conspiracy. That's just one way that the truth movement is marginalized and the status quo preserved. Similarly, some would say that whether or not we agree with John Albanese or Jon Gold, it is beyond the pale to suggest that they are knowingly dishonest. Still others would say that yes, there is a fake truth movement and fake truthers who are trying to derail our progress, but it is somehow bad form to say so--we should present a unified front to the public. I'll have none of it, thanks. I'll call a spade a spade AND promote what I consider to be the best evidence. Of course when I'm out in public talking to people about 9/11 I am not going to waste time explaining to people that there are fake truthers--I'm going to tell them to look up David Griffin's books, check out AE911truth.org, and clear up any misconceptions that they might be harboring (e.g. "oh you think Bush put bombs in the towers and that no planes hit them...") So Frank, while I appreciate your sharing your point of view I disagree wholeheartedly with regard to the poseurs among us. Not only should they be outed, but if necessary and feasible they should also be prosecuted as accessories after the fact. This isn't a threat aimed at anyone in particular--it's a warning to those (who know who they are) who are working for the perps that they will indeed be held to account. If Israel can spend decades hunting down Nazis, we can do the same bringing all the 9/11 perps and their accomplices to justice. We will never forget and never let go until justice has been done.
Haha! Not at all! Please answer Gretavo's question...
I'm trying not to support any kind of question about what happened on that day. I just want to let the facts speak and use the principle of 'confronting the evidence'. Of course this will also define a lot of causal possibilities.
On my 9/11 twitter feed I also place messages from Israel National News, or FoxNews or RightSideNews, if relevant. People aren't stupid, I don't have to teach them. I just provide information. That does not mean that I agree. What I often do is combining several sources, so readers can see the dots and connect them.
BTW, your suspicion towards me is exactly the mechanism I try to expose, because in itself this is a force that has all potential to destroy our efforts to communicate truth to others.
"We are running interference for the first group by pointing out the dishonesty of the second group and also go further than the first group by being willing to speculate a bit on who did commit 9-11."
"sorry I know the name but that's all, can't judge the person"
Well, I suggest you educate yourself about the behavior of this individual who represents himself as a "leader" and "veteran" of the "truth" movement. You can find some good recent discussion about his dishonest disruptive behavior on our site. Of course, it's your choice if you want to remain ignorant about the history of this John Albanese shill and what he's been doing to destroy the truth movement, but then you are attempting to discuss this matter from an uninformed position and lacking knowledge about the facts.
Can you provide me a typical issue or thread about Albanese? I mean a link? I don't want to invent the wheel. I'm curious if his fraud is worth arguing about on 9/11 websites, instead of summing-up all disinformation and correcting it on one web-page. I mean, you can't forbid a man to speak.
and while you're reading, bear in mind that Albanese is the "anonymous" poster who we outed by their common misspelling of "expertise" as "expertize". what else can you conclude about someone who uses a sockpuppet to argue against real evidence, including with pictures of molten iron misrepresented as molten aluminum? it wasn't long after that exchange that I was banned from 911blogger.
...is, or at least has been historically, better organized than the real truth movement. progress made by seemingly honest truthers like David Griffin has been made in spite of the best efforts of this fake truth movement. I think that by calling them out by name we make their job more difficult, and that is worth doing, for various reasons. should we also do as you suggest Frank, and let our advocacy of the best information speak for itself? sure. that was the whole point of naming this site wtcdemolition. It will go down as historical fact that this site was created as a response to and in protest of a clear effort to sabotage efforts at determining the truth behind 9/11. while this small group that we are can't fairly be held responsible for the truth movement failing, we certainly could be held responsible for allowing the entire phenomenon of the fake truth movement to go unchallenged and unremarked in the public discourse--IF we decided to simply take the high road and not "sink to that level." We still have more real discussions about real issues than a site like truthaction where they spend 90% of their time complaining not just about us but about people like David Griffin. Understanding WHY they have issues with DRG when DRG is clearly far and away the single best representative of this movement helps a great deal in figuring out what issues the perpetrators and their minions want covered up most--and that helps the movement immeasurably.
In fact I'm glad to be able to find more information and gather more facts about dangerous flaws within the 'movement' itself.
I never said that criticizing the 'movement' is taboo or a bad thing. But the format should be very cautious, substantial, factual and rid of personal feelings. That's hard to ask because we can't control every poster.
In other words, we need to act very professional. Not everybody, but lets say, a basic crew. Why these hard criteria? Because we need to attract (and never distract) all those newcomers with questions about 9/11. Problems within our own backyard will reduce us to some ridiculous fools when news-media or other dividers get some appetite after sensing these problems.
Of course the main issue should be 9/11 itself. Nevertheless I agree (also after reading those comments) that meta-communication can be necessary sometimes. But this also can be our Waterloo if not used with most possible care. Like I said yesterday, the war on information is also a psychological struggle. Most dis-info is commonly produced by the targets itself, due to suspicion, big ego's, misunderstandings, etc. For high organized levels it's very easy to damage occasional coalitions like this 9/11 truth movement.
I will take time to study the information about Albanese and Gold. Sorry for not having that done yet, due to a lack of time.
PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:43 pm Post subject: Reply with quote There is no new information to bring to the table regarding the CD hypothesis.
Its never too late to have another investigation. THAT's what we need, and if it's ever done fairly and finds that CD did not happen, but that members of the Bush administration actively helped facilitate the attacks and were brought to justice, isnt that whats important?
Sulha. It's an Arabic word that means reconciliation. America and the world have not healed from 9/11. The families need closure, the first responders need help, and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice, whatever that means.
We've had 9 years of theories getting us nowhere. We have a cottage industry based around 9/11. We have some of the most vile and despicable conspiracy theorists among our ranks. Somewhere along the line, we all collectively took a wrong turn.
The population calling for a new investigation must be married to the peace movement if we are ever to move forward. Allying with moon hoaxers, holocaust deniers, and every other fringe group has not helped the cause one bit. The image of our movement is pretty low these days, but it was never good. If we see any success in our lifetimes, we have to dump the dead weight and redefine ourselves.
Sadly, I dont see this happening. But maybe you all can surprise me.
I like Keenan's recent suggestion that there is a Truth movement and then there is a LIE-HOP movement. People who want to continue to deny the obvious -- that energy was added to the "equations" behind the WTC destruction -- have self-selected for the ash heap of history, and the idea that "as long as we get some Bush admin people punished nothing else is important" is the cherry on top. Let's not stand in their way.
"Sulha. It's an Arabic word that means reconciliation. America and the world have not healed from 9/11. The families need closure, the first responders need help, and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice, whatever that means."
Kinda ironic that he's using an Arabic word here given that he omits any mention of THE WARS THAT NEED TO BE STOPPED RIGHT NOW.
Submitted by Allende Admirer on Tue, 2010-06-15 23:23.
I can confidently say from the above correspondence that John A is a shill!
Firstly when people say 14 year olds are taught enough science to negate the OT they are correct. When people say "Children" or 2 year olds or any other ridiculous and dishonest re interpretation of that statement as often made by the fake truth movement then they are engaging in deceit , blatant propaganda and disinfo. They are shills!
Secondly , anyone who has any understanding of the principle's and scientific arguments involved in assessing the demolitions will realize that the extremely important facets of our evidence are as follows.
With Freefall, all potential energy converts to Kinetic energy therefore there is no energy left for:
a) Pulverizing concrete into dust
b) creating a pyroclastic (Heat driven) rapid expansion of gasses and dust clouds during collapse .
c) Taking out ALL the structure Completely BEFORE wtc7 fell in freefall AS ADMITTED BY NIST, so that it could fall unimpeded by the structure intrinsic to its integrity as a building in the first place, AND failing catastrophically at every point BEFORE collapse so that the buildings fell with very little collateral damage into their own footprint.
d) Ejecting girders laterally & visable explosions creating downward accelerations faster than G. (David Chandler)
e) Molten Steel is impossible under the conditions of a hydrocarbon fire, how was the heat generated from (Near Freefall)
Ok, so if we are slightly less than freefall, then we have more energy left for the other things?. However the energy required for the other things observed above would be MANY MANY times the potential energy inherent in the buildings before collapse.
I am sure there are better explanations than the above (from off the top of my head), but one thing is sure, If you try to represent the above evidence for CD as being merely the claim of freefall alone, or any other single point taken in isolation then you are a dishonest Lying Disinfo Shill!
If you take the required logic, which is to explain how all of the above evidence happened simultaneously, then there is only one conclusion . CD!
I especially like this piece of John Albaloney BS:
"anyone who thinks that it is a controlled demolition based purely on visual evidence is probably not open to the ideas of empirical evidence and science."
Now, John Albaloney probably thinks he is one clever little BS artist, yet the fact that he consistently keeps spewing these kinds of illogical utterances that can so easily be turned around and used against him seems to indicate that he is definitely not the brightest bulb in the box, and continues to be afflicted with a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease.
I can think of so many ways to turn this hilarious pile of illogical nonsense back at JohnA. Here's one, for example:
"Anyone who thinks that it is a plane that flew into the Pentagon based purely on visual evidence [of alleged witnesses] is probably not open to the ideas of empirical evidence and science."
Submitted by juandelacruz on Wed, 2010-06-16 00:42.
Maybe Chris is a newby. I used to link to WTC7.net not knowing the website's Pentagon stance was a problem. Heck it had good info on WTC7. The other guys in the thread, we know their rep.
I would just like to point out that this Chris is not that "chis". I can't stand Jim Hoffman and Victoria. You're right though, the WTC7 section isn't bad at all.
Demolition?
Oh Ho HO! This is HUGE, Gretavo!
No benefits in focussing on segments truthmovement
Since I see my name popping up several times I feel the need to respond on this topic.
What surprises me with the @Chis' contribution is the low response from other readers. But that's it for my concern. Why aren't we more focused on the outside, instead of blaming forces within the truth movement? We won't change a partner by demonizing it's efforts to speak truth. We just create the wrong awareness about troubles inside. The only parties who really enjoy this are those who fanatically defend the official story.
Why not being focused on our own quality and just picking issues about 9/11 that has substantial value? People from outside the movement (those we need to reach) with interest in what happened on 9/11 are not interested in quarrels that has no other perspective than being an endless repetition. I mean, it's horrible to see David Icke mentioned as a source in a discussion on a 'serious' 9/11 forum. But, hell, let that be their problem, we can't change it, only give attention to it and show the world that we're fighting each other.
Let's just be our own guide with good quality and the right audience will find us.
Frank Ho
http://waarheid911.com [Dutch]
http://twitter.com/W911 [English]
In an ideal world that would
In an ideal world that would be the way to go. But when disinfo such as Gold do their best to hog the limelight, then use that as a platform to misinform his audience, I think it becomes imperative on those who have not been fooled to call a spade a spade and a disinfo agent a disinfo agent.
On this obscure Chris person, yes we may be making a mountain out of a molehill. But on Albanese, Gold and other "outed" disinfo, I think it is good to keep the pressure up and offer them no quarters.
This is an information war, controlling the message is the name of the game. If we keep quiet on blatant disinfo campaigns, then we will lose.
> On this obscure Chris
> On this obscure Chris person
Again, it's not "Chris." It's "chis."
Thank you sir :-) But yeah,
Thank you sir :-) But yeah, I agree with juandelacruz, you cannot just let dishonest individuals within the 9/11 movement control the narrative. To just ignore them and only take on "official story" believers is not good enough. Because really, Gold and other obvious shills are in fact helping promote the main thrust of the official story anyway. They should not get a free pass to spew their bs just because they claim to be 9/11 activists.
You'll never succeed to
You'll never succeed to fight disinformation this way, in my opinion. This will always end in a continuous fight that nobody from outside the 'movement' can understand the way it should. How many enemies can you have? From broader perspective it's just the same ordinary street-fight that is characteristic for many fading movements in the past.
Being right is worthless unless you'll get your truth acknowledged. Winning the information War is nothing else than creating strong and reliable stages for presenting facts that can speak for themselves. In presenting this information we can profile our reliability in compare with others.
This openly quarreling and niggle on people (beside the question who is right) will harm us enormously. Criticizing people is also much easier than providing solid articles. Plz don't underestimate the public!
I understand, but can't agree
Hi Juan,
Sorry for responding this late. Although I understand what you're talking about I'm still feeling the same concern. I'm afraid we lose the baby with the wash water when focusing on external sources within the truthmovement. That's for the simple fact that dissonant voices will keep popping up. That's how disinformation works. Another point is that 'disinformation' isn't always intended, therefore the understanding between parties will worsen, exactly the way the Sunsteins wants us to be.
It's the ideal mechanism to splitting apart a movement. IMHO we should replace ourselves much more into the mindsets of those we need to reach with our information. Those people will give up immediately when confronted with all this conflicting information.
I do not mean we should not criticize at all. But I sense a lot of crossness and disdain to some of our "colleges" within the movement. Critics should be professional, with a clean substantial and factual attitude. And like I said, the best way to spread information is to create your own channel based on your own quality standard. That's something newcomers do appreciate and they will stick to it.
[Added: with 'your own channel' I mean just in general to make the source you prefer as good as possible with reliable info. I guess "WTCDemolition.com" has everything to create something promising]
Please rethink the way we should fight disinformation within our own camp. We are just at the beginning of many efforts to split the movement. We should not be driven by our emotions but use cool tactics and some wisdom.
Other point of the same problem is this: we do have success in the case we try to bring forwards. Time seems on our side, but the people (I mean us in general) who try to spread the truth are just people, the same kind as in the real world ;-) When successes will occur many of them will claim a role. Arrogance and ego-centrism will occur.
I clearly experienced this while having a very large and informative 9/11 twitter account but never being followed by some particular 9/11 parties on twitter. I never understood this strange lack of solidarity and irrational refuse to grasp good info.
With my Dutch website same story. I have the largest and most informed website in Dutch language. Very factual with detailed information without many personal opinions, etc. Still after a few years some of the other Dutch 9/11 sites still didn't put a link on their site to serve their new visitors with this relevant information. I don't need them, don't misunderstand me. But for me it's very difficult to comprehend why those dudes have such a small attitude towards their own products. But this has nothing to do with conspiracy. Everything with ego.
In other words, we should not lose our cool. It's not about us. We are now in a decisive period and there should be only one focus: that's truth and not only about being right, but getting those facts acknowledged.
Where would you draw the line?
What do you do with obvious frauds who have been caught knowingly and purposefully lying and misrepresenting the truth over and over again? How much damage does a disinfo agent have to do before they are quarantined?
Take John Albanese, for instance. I'm sure by now you've read about the history of his blatant dishonesty and shill-like behavior, going back at least since 2006. Would you just let him continue to get away with his blatant disruptive and dishonest behavior and say, "we're one big happy family and everyone's cool, and if the truth movement is hijacked and thwarted by such individuals, oh well?"
At what point would you call a spade a spade and attempt to stop the destructive behavior?
You don't have to draw a line
You don't have to draw a line. Just fight the good fight! I mean, 1,000 "John Albaneses" will stand up if necessary if the movement becomes too strong. (sorry I know the name but that's all, can't judge the person) Will you fight them all? Don't you know that this kind of struggle is contagious, and that by doing this we do exactly what our worst enemies loves to see us doing?
This is what information war is about. Don't go for the easy solutions, cause it will result exactly in the kind of fragmentation that we try to prevent. It's not my intention to protect people or justify what some may do wrong. It's not about that.
But we didn't start the fragmentation or division...
The shills started the fragmentation and divisions and polarization with their dishonest disruptive and anti-truth behavior. It's too late to try to prevent fragmentation, but we can show people where the real divisions are and expose the frauds. But I'm not about to join in some fake unity with obvious frauds and liars. That will not help the movement in the least.
But we didn't start the fragmentation or division...
You didn't start it, but still want to go in the slipstream from those who did? You can't change your enemies and they're countless. Only thing you can do is showing the quality you have to convince people from the information you have. It's only about information, not opinions, not quarrels.
YOU know exactly about the problems you have with liars and dividers, but the people who fall into these discussions only see the quarrels and hook-of. They've seen it too often. 9/11 is too complicated in itself to present it with all this shit included.
In information war divider's main target is not the information itself, but the ego's from those who are involved in the movement. It's a psychological war. Don't fight the wrong fight, don't let yourself be tempted to fight that way. In information war the best tactics are those who let the targets produce their own disinformation. That's clean, save and profitable.
It's like the way how people demand their government to protect them when some terrorist attack did occur. They get mad. Then they will have their protection and their wars. Almost everybody happy.
http://waarheid911.com [Dutch]
http://twitter.com/W911 [English]
I think you do not know the
I think you do not know the history of this website. Most of us here started out using reasoned arguments to point out what was bad info from the shills that were in 911blogger. What this resulted to was us getting thrown out of 911blogger by the mods who were protecting exactly the people that we are criticizing now for being shills.
You can disagree, that is your prerogative. If you mix with Albanese and Gold, you will find out for yourself why we point them out for what they are.
They are not that many, but they are well organized and probably, well funded. There are more potential truthers, which is why these groups or individuals are trying to subvert the many to believe their lihop narrative. The end game I think is to pin the blame on a subset of the culprits or perhaps on entirely innocent patsys as the plan always was, and in so doing negate the consequences of the truth movement on the real perpetrators of 9-11.
Lets put it this way, groups and individual's like Richard Gage's AE911truth is running the clean campaign, they present nothing beyond the evidence of controlled demolition and stick to calls for an investigation.
The shills of 911blogger and truthaction are doing what they can to downplay the importance of controlled demolition and driving the focus towards Arab and Muslim terrorism, and government incompetence and also away from Zionist involvement. They also try to talk dirty of the first group when they can although I have never seen the first group engage this band of disinfo agents.
We are running interference for the first group by pointing out the dishonesty of the second group and also go further than the first group by being willing to speculate a bit on who did commit 9-11. While our evidence may be circumstantial or else even historical interpretations - not finger print evidence, we do have a substantial body of material supporting our views. If it weren't for the focus that we bring on the real perps, and the dishonesty of the shill trying to muddy up the facts, the perpetrators of 9-11 will never be caught and will likely commit the same crime in the future.
Very well put and I
Very well put and I completely agree. To ignore the obvious shills is negligence. To Frank I would say-you do NOT want the Albanese' of the world to control the narrative. You don't really want anybody to do that but that is exactly what will happen if these people are not called out as needed. They feel the same way about most of(probably all of) us anyway.
i don't trust you, Frank Ho
your dutch website leaves a bit to be desired as well. it (ur website)seems perfectly constructed to support muzzle-ums involvement. are you of the mindset that crazy arabs played a significant role in the physical damage that day?
let's be fair...
...anonymous. what about Frank's website seems "perfectly constructed to support muzzle-ums involvement"? I don't read Dutch and haven't looked at an online translated version of his site--what do you see there that concerns you?
You shouldn't trust anyone
You shouldn't trust anyone in this movement that you do not know personally, including me.
But, I wouldn't be too hasty to judge someone I come across for the first time either, including some who may be passing bad info.
Most of the characters pointed out as shills on this site usually earned their reputation by being repeatedly unwilling to change their opinion and/or message despite obvious good info to the contrary. It is like NIST saying that there was no controlled demolition at WTC despite overwhelming evidence indicating that there was.
Someone like Jon Gold is impossible to convince about controlled demolition no matter how much evidence you present to him. I think he is paid to pretend that he does not understand controlled demolition.
Most other people however, including me I admit at one time or another held and promoted views that later turned out to be based on bad info. When presented with better info, I change my mind.
With the shills, when better info comes out about a topic, controlled demolition for example, the louder they say controlled demolition is not important or that they understand it less. That's how we spot them. It's not so hard, but you have to be familiar with them a bit over time.
An example is NYCActivist. I don't know if this is a real person or an online experiment by the perps. This self claimed scientist (on the net, you can be anyone) started out believing in controlled demo. Slowly she turns to be skeptical of CD. Finally she says she is convinced there was no CD.
Nothing wrong if there was evidence against CD coming out over time, but on the contrary, around that time,there were discoveries supporting CD. She just seemed to go against good evidence, which made her lose credibility.
When CD finally got the solid support of the truth movement, her blog just stopped getting updates. Her character must have gotten untenable because she was marketed as an intellectual who knew science. No self respecting scientist would argue against free fall collapse as evidence of CD.
I like the comparison...
"It is like NIST saying that there was no controlled demolition at WTC despite overwhelming evidence indicating that there was."
And I'm sure many people would argue that whether or not we agree with NIST, it is beyond the pale to suggest that they are lying or part of some vast conspiracy. That's just one way that the truth movement is marginalized and the status quo preserved. Similarly, some would say that whether or not we agree with John Albanese or Jon Gold, it is beyond the pale to suggest that they are knowingly dishonest. Still others would say that yes, there is a fake truth movement and fake truthers who are trying to derail our progress, but it is somehow bad form to say so--we should present a unified front to the public. I'll have none of it, thanks. I'll call a spade a spade AND promote what I consider to be the best evidence. Of course when I'm out in public talking to people about 9/11 I am not going to waste time explaining to people that there are fake truthers--I'm going to tell them to look up David Griffin's books, check out AE911truth.org, and clear up any misconceptions that they might be harboring (e.g. "oh you think Bush put bombs in the towers and that no planes hit them...") So Frank, while I appreciate your sharing your point of view I disagree wholeheartedly with regard to the poseurs among us. Not only should they be outed, but if necessary and feasible they should also be prosecuted as accessories after the fact. This isn't a threat aimed at anyone in particular--it's a warning to those (who know who they are) who are working for the perps that they will indeed be held to account. If Israel can spend decades hunting down Nazis, we can do the same bringing all the 9/11 perps and their accomplices to justice. We will never forget and never let go until justice has been done.
Haha! Not at all! Please
@anonymous: "i don't trust you, Frank Ho"
Haha! Not at all! Please answer Gretavo's question...
I'm trying not to support any kind of question about what happened on that day. I just want to let the facts speak and use the principle of 'confronting the evidence'. Of course this will also define a lot of causal possibilities.
On my 9/11 twitter feed I also place messages from Israel National News, or FoxNews or RightSideNews, if relevant. People aren't stupid, I don't have to teach them. I just provide information. That does not mean that I agree. What I often do is combining several sources, so readers can see the dots and connect them.
BTW, your suspicion towards me is exactly the mechanism I try to expose, because in itself this is a force that has all potential to destroy our efforts to communicate truth to others.
yes, well said!
"We are running interference for the first group by pointing out the dishonesty of the second group and also go further than the first group by being willing to speculate a bit on who did commit 9-11."
"sorry I know the name but
"sorry I know the name but that's all, can't judge the person"
Well, I suggest you educate yourself about the behavior of this individual who represents himself as a "leader" and "veteran" of the "truth" movement. You can find some good recent discussion about his dishonest disruptive behavior on our site. Of course, it's your choice if you want to remain ignorant about the history of this John Albanese shill and what he's been doing to destroy the truth movement, but then you are attempting to discuss this matter from an uninformed position and lacking knowledge about the facts.
Can you provide me a typical
Can you provide me a typical issue or thread about Albanese? I mean a link? I don't want to invent the wheel. I'm curious if his fraud is worth arguing about on 9/11 websites, instead of summing-up all disinformation and correcting it on one web-page. I mean, you can't forbid a man to speak.
Here's a good place to start
Read this thread
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2814
then, use the search box and look up older threads that discuss John Albanese and you will learn much.
Thanks, I'll give it a try.
Thanks, I'll give it a try. Come back later, it's midnight in Holland ;-)
THis one is a classic, where he is busted for sockpuppetry
http://www.wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2833#comment-21554
yeah that's classic
and while you're reading, bear in mind that Albanese is the "anonymous" poster who we outed by their common misspelling of "expertise" as "expertize". what else can you conclude about someone who uses a sockpuppet to argue against real evidence, including with pictures of molten iron misrepresented as molten aluminum? it wasn't long after that exchange that I was banned from 911blogger.
the problem is that the fake truth movement...
...is, or at least has been historically, better organized than the real truth movement. progress made by seemingly honest truthers like David Griffin has been made in spite of the best efforts of this fake truth movement. I think that by calling them out by name we make their job more difficult, and that is worth doing, for various reasons. should we also do as you suggest Frank, and let our advocacy of the best information speak for itself? sure. that was the whole point of naming this site wtcdemolition. It will go down as historical fact that this site was created as a response to and in protest of a clear effort to sabotage efforts at determining the truth behind 9/11. while this small group that we are can't fairly be held responsible for the truth movement failing, we certainly could be held responsible for allowing the entire phenomenon of the fake truth movement to go unchallenged and unremarked in the public discourse--IF we decided to simply take the high road and not "sink to that level." We still have more real discussions about real issues than a site like truthaction where they spend 90% of their time complaining not just about us but about people like David Griffin. Understanding WHY they have issues with DRG when DRG is clearly far and away the single best representative of this movement helps a great deal in figuring out what issues the perpetrators and their minions want covered up most--and that helps the movement immeasurably.
In fact I'm glad to be able
In fact I'm glad to be able to find more information and gather more facts about dangerous flaws within the 'movement' itself.
I never said that criticizing the 'movement' is taboo or a bad thing. But the format should be very cautious, substantial, factual and rid of personal feelings. That's hard to ask because we can't control every poster.
In other words, we need to act very professional. Not everybody, but lets say, a basic crew. Why these hard criteria? Because we need to attract (and never distract) all those newcomers with questions about 9/11. Problems within our own backyard will reduce us to some ridiculous fools when news-media or other dividers get some appetite after sensing these problems.
Of course the main issue should be 9/11 itself. Nevertheless I agree (also after reading those comments) that meta-communication can be necessary sometimes. But this also can be our Waterloo if not used with most possible care. Like I said yesterday, the war on information is also a psychological struggle. Most dis-info is commonly produced by the targets itself, due to suspicion, big ego's, misunderstandings, etc. For high organized levels it's very easy to damage occasional coalitions like this 9/11 truth movement.
I will take time to study the information about Albanese and Gold. Sorry for not having that done yet, due to a lack of time.
http://waarheid911.com [Dutch]
http://twitter.com/W911 [English]
ZBH
PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:43 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
There is no new information to bring to the table regarding the CD hypothesis.
Its never too late to have another investigation. THAT's what we need, and if it's ever done fairly and finds that CD did not happen, but that members of the Bush administration actively helped facilitate the attacks and were brought to justice, isnt that whats important?
Sulha. It's an Arabic word that means reconciliation. America and the world have not healed from 9/11. The families need closure, the first responders need help, and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice, whatever that means.
We've had 9 years of theories getting us nowhere. We have a cottage industry based around 9/11. We have some of the most vile and despicable conspiracy theorists among our ranks. Somewhere along the line, we all collectively took a wrong turn.
The population calling for a new investigation must be married to the peace movement if we are ever to move forward. Allying with moon hoaxers, holocaust deniers, and every other fringe group has not helped the cause one bit. The image of our movement is pretty low these days, but it was never good. If we see any success in our lifetimes, we have to dump the dead weight and redefine ourselves.
Sadly, I dont see this happening. But maybe you all can surprise me.
I agree that the dead weight needs to be dumped.
I like Keenan's recent suggestion that there is a Truth movement and then there is a LIE-HOP movement. People who want to continue to deny the obvious -- that energy was added to the "equations" behind the WTC destruction -- have self-selected for the ash heap of history, and the idea that "as long as we get some Bush admin people punished nothing else is important" is the cherry on top. Let's not stand in their way.
don't forget to water the memes...
so they will grow strong and happy!
LIHOP Movement = LIHOPpers
Truth Movement = Truthers
I can hear it now...
"You know what LIHOPper is code for right...?"
Oh and...
"Sulha. It's an Arabic word that means reconciliation. America and the world have not healed from 9/11. The families need closure, the first responders need help, and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice, whatever that means."
Kinda ironic that he's using an Arabic word here given that he omits any mention of THE WARS THAT NEED TO BE STOPPED RIGHT NOW.
oh... how sensitive.
i guess they don't really hate Arabs. Or Muslims in general.
Albanese
"we have no leadership. we have no organizing body or board of directors. we have no approved cariculumn."
That's right. Y'all don't even have the ability to spell 'curriculum' or the ability to use spell check. It's embarrassing -- for YOU.
ZZZOMGLOLZZZ11
cariculum.... urban dictionary anyone? bet I'll be first!
being peer-reviewed as we speak
who's the cariculumn now?
I left out the N ... :(
I can confidently say from
I can confidently say from the above correspondence that John A is a shill!
Firstly when people say 14 year olds are taught enough science to negate the OT they are correct. When people say "Children" or 2 year olds or any other ridiculous and dishonest re interpretation of that statement as often made by the fake truth movement then they are engaging in deceit , blatant propaganda and disinfo. They are shills!
Secondly , anyone who has any understanding of the principle's and scientific arguments involved in assessing the demolitions will realize that the extremely important facets of our evidence are as follows.
With Freefall, all potential energy converts to Kinetic energy therefore there is no energy left for:
a) Pulverizing concrete into dust
b) creating a pyroclastic (Heat driven) rapid expansion of gasses and dust clouds during collapse .
c) Taking out ALL the structure Completely BEFORE wtc7 fell in freefall AS ADMITTED BY NIST, so that it could fall unimpeded by the structure intrinsic to its integrity as a building in the first place, AND failing catastrophically at every point BEFORE collapse so that the buildings fell with very little collateral damage into their own footprint.
d) Ejecting girders laterally & visable explosions creating downward accelerations faster than G. (David Chandler)
e) Molten Steel is impossible under the conditions of a hydrocarbon fire, how was the heat generated from (Near Freefall)
Ok, so if we are slightly less than freefall, then we have more energy left for the other things?. However the energy required for the other things observed above would be MANY MANY times the potential energy inherent in the buildings before collapse.
I am sure there are better explanations than the above (from off the top of my head), but one thing is sure, If you try to represent the above evidence for CD as being merely the claim of freefall alone, or any other single point taken in isolation then you are a dishonest Lying Disinfo Shill!
If you take the required logic, which is to explain how all of the above evidence happened simultaneously, then there is only one conclusion . CD!
Yep, John Albaloney - one of the most obvious frauds
I especially like this piece of John Albaloney BS:
"anyone who thinks that it is a controlled demolition based purely on visual evidence is probably not open to the ideas of empirical evidence and science."
Now, John Albaloney probably thinks he is one clever little BS artist, yet the fact that he consistently keeps spewing these kinds of illogical utterances that can so easily be turned around and used against him seems to indicate that he is definitely not the brightest bulb in the box, and continues to be afflicted with a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease.
I can think of so many ways to turn this hilarious pile of illogical nonsense back at JohnA. Here's one, for example:
"Anyone who thinks that it is a plane that flew into the Pentagon based purely on visual evidence [of alleged witnesses] is probably not open to the ideas of empirical evidence and science."
Maybe Chris is a newby. I
Maybe Chris is a newby. I used to link to WTC7.net not knowing the website's Pentagon stance was a problem. Heck it had good info on WTC7. The other guys in the thread, we know their rep.
I would just like to point
I would just like to point out that this Chris is not that "chis". I can't stand Jim Hoffman and Victoria. You're right though, the WTC7 section isn't bad at all.
I'm pretty sure this is actually "Chisa"
who is an Australian truther and has been involved in some kind of Bursill-fueled internet drama. A woman.
The Bursill dramas are awesome
maybe "Chias" doesn't refer to pets *at all* and instead is australian for "cheers"?
What Explosions?
this guy left off the B