9/11 “Truth” – You want some?
October, 2006. (Updated January & June, 2008)
(Note: If any of the links no longer work, then they all did on October 2006, when this essay was written. Sorry … but you missed the boat)
Well, you have come to the right place. You may very well not like what you read, but it will be “the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”.
This article is primarily designed for those 9/11 Truthers who inhabit Blogs, Forums, and Chat Rooms, read Comments, etc … but generally never post.
(Others may very well read what is written here, and take great offence. That is their problem, not mine. In the same mode as General Custer at the battle of Little Bighorn, I don’t take prisoners)
I do not know exactly what the statistics are, but I believe the British 9/11 Truth Campaign Forum has some 800 or so Members … yet the postings are dominated by … what … a 100 or so at the most? It is the same with 911Blogger and all the other Forums, Chat Rooms, etc.
Personally I am not a prolific ‘Poster’. I can’t be bothered with it all. You will understand why (I hope) if you read this article through to the end. This is why I ‘pop up’ now and again, post something, and then disappear (as in a puff of smoke). I’ve done (what I consider to be) my job, by posting the information. It is for others to chew it over at their leisure.
That’s me. Now let’s get down to brass tacks.
9/11 Truth is a cesspit. You probably felt that – to some extent, in the back of your mind – otherwise you probably wouldn’t be reading this.
But it is, unfortunately, true. I try to give an overall picture here. (I actually suggest you read that link before going any further, because I intend to draw on some of the points made.)
There is not a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 “Truth” was planned simultaneously with 9/11 itself. That is why you have so many conflicting stories, points of view, arguments and discussions, etc. The Trolls were pre-ordained and planned. So were the major WebSites (e.g. 911Truth.org).
It is a known fact that any grouping of five or more will be infiltrated. There is also plenty of information available on how to deal with infiltrations, being based on the experiences of others over the last few decades. Consequently you may be certain that 9/11 “Truth” is thoroughly infiltrated … which creates the cesspit I described earlier.
If that’s the case … what can I do about it?
You must use your own brain. Do not, under any circumstances, take the assertions of others as gospel. Yes – that includes me – but I’m only telling you to use your own commonsense and faculties – what’s wrong with that? You should be doing that throughout your life anyway. Everyone is responsible for their own thoughts, deeds, words and actions.
But I wasn’t in New York City on 9/11, so how do I know what is true and what is not?
You rarely will. Know for sure. (Even when all of the ‘perps’ are in prison, there will still be buckets of 9/11 unsolved). All you can do is to watch the various video recordings, listen to what has been said, read what has been written, and make up your own mind.
Having made up your own mind, you then try to tell others.
It is, however, essential – during this process – to remain in singlethink. There is no point in trying to convey a confused story to someone else. Get your own ideas straight first. (Refer to my other article above, and possibly the links within it). Reject anything that “doesn’t really add up”. (There is nothing to stop you ‘locking it away in your memory’, and piecing it together with something else later – if the combination makes more sense than you originally thought).
One thing you could do is to take a leaf out of ‘a Researcher’s Handbook’, and start operating according to the four principles outlined here: Disinformation and the art of critical thinking … and to learn the techniques for becoming an instant Truth Hero … by making up your own evidence as you go along, which would enable you to understand how to dismiss instant evidence, as and when you encounter it (as you will, all the time).
One thing is for sure. You will never understand the 9/11 “Truth” cesspit without a bit of 9/11 “Truth” history. And that (probably) is where this particular article will be of most use to you.
So let’s make a start.
We need to go back to 15th September, 2001 – yes, that’s four days after 9/11 – when Jared Israel & Illarion Bykov, of The Emperor’s New Clothes, published a well-researched article that said “Inside Job”. If you can recall, at this time, the entire world (including me – and probably you as well) was recoiling from the fact that 19 young Arabs had hijacked four airliners, and flew them into the World Trade Centre Towers & the Pentagon, on a suicide mission.
Now, it is true that Israel & Bykov did not get all of their facts straight – after all most of the facts still remained very much hidden at the time, but nevertheless the evidence they presented stood up (in essence). (And, furthermore, if you can cast your mind back to the world’s mindset at the time, “Inside Job” was a very brave step to take). And their ‘singlethink’ methodology was a lesson in good researching techniques.
Subsequently certain ‘icons’ started to appear over time. Alex Jones credits himself with calling an “Inside Job” even before 9/11, but then Alex Jones will tend to credit himself with anything. Alex Jones certainly doesn’t use total singlethink – otherwise he would not push such luminaries as Ray McGovern & Cindy Sheenan, who still (to the best of my knowledge at the time of writing) contend that 19 young Arabs did the deed.
Other ‘luminaries’ appeared, for example Mike Ruppert. Ruppert was telling the world that (a) The Towers fell because of being hit by the planes, and the ensuing fires, and (b) That the world was running out of oil (and that was what it was all about).
One also saw the rise of others, such as Barrie Zwicker and Dave vonKleist, who came out with videos called The Great Conspiracy and In Plane Site, respectively. Both purporting to tell the 9/11 Truth, but both woefully short of that – even at the time – as we shall see.
Nevertheless Barrie Zwicker initially appeared to be at the forefront. He distilled TENC's (The Emperor's New Clothes, see above) evidence, and got it on TV when that was still ‘cutting edge’, and he did a fairly good job of presenting it. It was subsequent to that stage when he revealed his rottenness, by not moving with the evidence as it developed, getting into bed with Mike Ruppert, and gradually retiring TENC from the scene ... while making money out of never moving beyond their work. In fact in some ways miring their work, by tangling it up with Ruppert's bullshit.
Again, Dave vonKleist deserves some credit. His video actually was seminal in terms of distilling aspects of 9/11 into a popularised mainstream form. There is (now) another other side to this penny (it is hard for vonKleist to accept that any ‘pod’ he saw was actually a cartoon drawing), but even then it is still possible to have mixed feelings about In Plane Site. A lot of people have had the initial light bulb turned on by that video. It is a complex situation and the complexity can be honoured by acknowledging that Dave VonKleist had to do some good, in order to do the subsequent ‘bad’.
There were others who were ‘doing their thing’ in relation to other aspects. Paul Thompson, for example, with his 9/11 (Terror) Timeline. And Eric Hufshmid, with his Painful Questions/Deceptions book and videos.
There were many others. For example the ‘daddies of them all’ 911Truth.org, 911Blogger.com, etc. I do not intend to list them all for the simple reason that they were all wrong – to a greater or lesser extent.
What they got wrong was, generally speaking, to continue to doublethink their way through the 9/11 Truth process – often cherry-picking facts in the process.
The reason that can be said is explained below.
In October 2001 Part (1) of J. McMichael’s article Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics appeared. (Subsequently a Part 2 was added). In January, 2002, this was noticed by a young Australian guitarist, Gerard Holmgren, who ran the collapse times through some very basic ‘physics’ (The Law of Falling Bodies which resulted from the works of Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton), and came to the conclusion that those Towers did, indeed, drop at Free-Fall speeds, and that could only result from Controlled Demolitions.
(I can also say that stumbling across McMichael’s article, in Serendipity, was what later woke me up, as well).
Around about this same time, Gerard also discovered Gary North, who had published an article called The Perplexing Puzzle of the Published Passenger Lists (on 12th October, 2001). Gary had discovered that the Passenger Lists did not contain any Arabic names. While it may seem rather basic and passé now, at the time it was one of those things that was so obvious most people didn't think to look at an aspect such as that. Gerard recalls "I remember reading his article, having discovered it about January 2002, and being blown away. At the time, it seemed incredible. I was just learning how things work. The lies are so ‘in your face’ you don't even think to look at some aspect like that. North didn't do anything else that I know of, but the simple act of questioning whether the Arabs really were on the planes at all, opened up the whole discussion of ‘remote controlled planes’, and ultimately made Thierry Meyssan’s job easier when he published (Pentagate, etc.), which ultimately made Rosalee's job easier" (see WebFairy, below).
Gerard was convinced that The Law of Falling Bodies was the way to unravel 9/11, and discovered a WebSite called http://www.webfairy.org/, run by Rosalee Grable, that was publishing information which pointed out that the Towers fell due to Controlled Demolitions. One of the things that led Rosalee to this conclusion was that, after poring over single-frame video ‘captures’ for hours on end, she noticed the WTC7 ‘squibs’. (In point of fact this was how Gerard ‘discovered’ Building 7).
J McMichael was the icebreaker for people who only needed common sense, but Jeff King (PlaguePuppy) was the one took apart every aspect of the demolition for detailed examination, and also did a lot to pioneer the recognition that it wasn't just conventional explosives. Gerard found Jeff King in early 2002, gave Jeff the 'falling bodies' insight, and Jeff was the first to publish that insight (as far as is known). Additional collaborations took place with a small group of others, such as Dave Heller and California-based Jeff Strahl, who must be credited for what was known as the Resistance Paradox. This pointed out that “The towers fell at a rate which showed the tops encountered no more resistance from the lower portions than from air, yet the tops disintegrated while falling, as if they encountered very high resistance. An insoluble paradox if one accepts the official story of gravity-driven collapses caused by plane impacts and ensuing fires.”
Joined by Scott Loughrey, Gerard and Rosalee started to point this out to all the ‘big guys’.
Guess what happened? All the ‘big guys’ said “Gee … thanks very much … we’ve been looking for definitive proof … putting all our resources into it … and you have saved us a whole heap of trouble! Can’t thank you enough!”
In point of fact, the three people named above went through - what can only be described as - ‘e-mail hell’. “You will divide and destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement with that heresy”, is a mild sample of what they received. I don’t intend to detail the actual language used. I leave that, dear reader, for you to use your own imagination. (Alex Jones, for example, can be quite profane off-air).
Now, four years later, who in the 9/11 “Truth” Movement would dispute that the Towers collapsed due to Controlled Demolitions?
It was the ‘Galileo Syndrome’ all over again. (It always is).
Here’s another example: The Origins of Oil (an article by Paul V. Sheridan). This is pertinent in relation to the fact that one those most opposed to Controlled Demolitions, and most dedicated to bringing ‘Peak Oil’ into the plot, was Mike Ruppert. At the time of writing, Mr. Ruppert has emigrated to Venezuela (or somewhere in South America), and is asking for hand-outs. The subject of that link is a book written by someone else who experienced the ‘Galileo Syndrome’ in his lifetime – the late Prof. Tom Gold. This book directly contradicts just about everything Ruppert ever had to say. However Prof. Gold knew how to perform research. And how to think straight. I am assured that the only Truth in Ruppert’s outpourings were the ‘concurrent War Games’, which was research supplied to him by Nico Haupt (see below).
At the time of writing, Gerard Holmgren & Rosalee Grable have been joined by a few others. One (notably) being Nico Haupt. Together with Prof. Morgan Reynolds and Prof. Judy Wood (and others) they have analysed all the various footage of 9/11 available, applied some real Physics, and have come to the conclusion that there were no commercial airliners (i.e. ‘big Boeings’) involved in the 9/11 atrocity. This is, of course, contrary to a number of ‘eye-witness’ reports. Those have obviously been studiously examined, and found to be sufficiently ‘wanting’ as to be dismissible for various reasons. Unsupportable claims, contradictions, just plain old obvious lying … you name it.
The point is that the ‘forensics’ have been examined – as well as the video and audio footage – and this shows no big Boeings either.
Links to much of this can be found on Gerard’s site and Rosalee’s site, as well as Morgan Reynold’s site. If you watch the film 911EyeWitness, by Rick Siegel you will also pick up a lot of pertinent information (Tending to provide answers to the question “I wasn’t there … what can I do?”. Well Rick was there. And he filmed most of it).
Once the findings of this group were presented to the ‘big guys’, guess what happened?
Yup … you guessed it (“Dividing the 9/11 Truth Movement! Disinfo!” all over again). However, previous experience has hardened this group, such that it has the expertise to pursue what is known as “TV Fakery”, or “No-planes”, or “No Big Boeings” (whatever you wish to call it) against all odds.
The facts speak for themselves. “TV Fakery” (as I will call it for convenience) has now been ‘prominent’ for about 4 months (as of the time of writing). It was well-known, in inner circles prior to that, of course – I’m talking ‘prominent’. During its time in the underlayerings, massive attempts were made to prevent it from surfacing to “Truthers” generally. This did not work.
It is now fairly prominent on Forums, Message Boards and Chat Rooms, particularly 911Blogger.com, where howls of rage can be read whenever TV Fakery is mentioned.
Yet it still persists.
You might ask yourself why? How come this ‘most absurd’ 9/11 theory just will not ‘go away’ – in spite of all the CAPITAL LETTERS shouting “DISINFO / OBVIOUS COINTELPRO” in these postings, and on blogs, etc.
The answer is simple. It’s the Truth. It stands on its own two legs. All you have to do is to look at the research and you would be convinced. And people are looking at the research (out of curiosity - to find out what all the SHOUTING is about), and realising that all the SHOUTING is nothing but empty bluster.
Consequently we don’t mind the SHOUTING. The Trolls can SHOUT as much as they like. All they do is to draw attention to the research.
Well that’s enough history. (If it isn’t, then there are lots more details here). It brings us more or less up to date. Essential points are:
1) Jared Israel & Illarion Bykov called “Inside Job” four days after 9/11 – and have been – for the most part – totally ignored by so-called 9/11 “Truth”. They also provided the model for good research.
2) J. McMichael calling “The Laws of Physics say that the building did not fall due to planes & fires” in October, 2001.
3) Gary North pointing out “There are no Arabic-sounding names on any Passenger Manifests” in October, 2001.
4) Jeff King laying the groundwork for calling “Controlled Demolitions AND NOT WITH CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES” in early 2002
5) Gerard, Rosalee & Scott called “Controlled Demolitions AND NOT WITH CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES” in 2002, and were castigated universally. Nevertheless “Controlled Demolitions” (at least that part) is now everyday 9/11 “Truth” language.
6) Thierry Meyssan is known for promoting “Hunt the Boeing” at the Pentagon. He is about the only researcher who actually did some research and has been credited with it. Presumably this was because he published it all in a book. Possibly Eric Hufshmid falls into this category as well.
Now, the question is, what have I missed out?
Oh! I remember! Of course! Prof. David Ray Griffin, and Prof. Steve E. Jones!
OK, let’s take them in order.
Professor David Ray Griffin
Prof. Griffin’s contributions have been books, of course. The New Pearl Harbour & in 2004, Omissions & Distortions in 2005, and Explosive Testimonies & Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11 in 2006.
But … “Inside Job” (with research) was called on 15th September, 2001 by Israel & Bykov (although they did not write a book about it), and “Controlled Demolitions” (with research) was called in 2002 by Holmgren, Grable & Loughrey (but they didn’t write a book about it either).
And yet, in the New Pearl Harbour (2004), “Controlled Demolitions” was not mentioned. It did creep into the 2nd Edition.
However “Controlled Demolitions” is not prominent in Omissions & Distortions, 2005 … merely the fact that the demise of WTC7 was not mentioned by the 9/11 Omission.
So where does Prof. Griffin’s ‘foremost research’ come from? Well, he gave something of an answer during his speech in London, in September 2006, when he said “Really the only research I did for New Pearl Harbour was to check out the fact that the BBC found some of the hijackers still alive”.
When “Controlled Demolitions” & “TV Fakery” is taken into account, Prof. Griffin’s own research is, therefore, nil. (But quite rewarding financially, I would have thought).
The reason it is nil is because there were no big Boeings. Therefore no Jet Fuel, no ‘Stand Down’, and – of course - no ‘hijackers’ (there were some ‘patsies’, but no hijackers).
There might have been some passengers, who landed in Cleveland, Ohio. Who knows? And who knows what happened to them?
Prof. Griffin is now proposing that the NORAD Tapes were ’faked’. No need, Dr. Griffin. There were no planes, so there was no need to ‘fake’ the tapes.
Perhaps the reason why so many so-called “Truthers” cling to Dr. Griffin is because it was his New Pearl Harbour that ‘woke them up’. I suppose I, personally, am fortunate in the fact that I had woken up quite a while before New Pearl Harbour, and therefore considered it to be nothing more than a well-written collation of the 9/11 “Truth” scene at the time, but actually said nothing new. Perhaps this enables me, personally, to take a much more dispassionate view. A view similar to the very professional view of George Trinkhaus. For this reason I, personally, do not see Dr. Griffin ‘walking on water’. I see someone who has managed to create a following out of many other people’s efforts, and (for various reasons – some explained here, but there are others) leading everyone ‘up the garden path’. Especially when his close associates, who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), are taken into account.
I’ll say it once more, for luck. “Controlled Demolitions”:
2002 Grable-Holmgren et al.
2006 Griffin (primarily in Explosive Testimonies). FOUR years later, when it could no longer be denied.
Professor Steve E. Jones
Prof. Steven E Jones appeared on the scene in 2005 (via Alex Jones), stating “It is possible that the Towers seem to have collapsed by means of Controlled Demolitions, but this is only a hypothesis which I must check out”. He then proceeded to test out the theory that traces of the explosive substance thermate could be detected in samples received from Ground Zero. Since that time he has produced a number of ‘scientific papers’, run seminars, and produced a PowerPoint presentation of his ‘hypothesis’.
All, in point of fact, to absolutely no avail. For a number of reasons.
First of all he cannot (or will not) state the ‘chain of custody’ of the GZ samples he has used. Consequently they could have come from anywhere. He has refused access to other Physicists who would be able to duplicate (and thus double-check) his findings.
Furthermore there is no guarantee that any thermate detected in the samples did not come from the GZ cleanup. Without sworn affidavits from every GZ Cleanup Worker (some of whom are now dead), this would be impossible to disprove.
And, finally, he has made no attempt whatsoever to propose anything other than absurd hypotheses as to the explosives that were used – such as to account for the complete pulverisation of almost all Towers to fine, toxic, dust – including concrete and steel. And all the burned-out vehicles in surrounding areas. And the fact that ‘paperwork’ was spread over a large area, and did not seem to sustain any damage.
In other words, whatever brought down the Towers could pulverise concrete, steel and aluminium, while simply disbursing paper.
(Oh, and by the way, Prof. Jones has been caught lying on a number of occasions. You would need to read The Dark Side of Professor Steven E Jones for details)
Consequently it is a reasonable statement that Prof. Jones contribution has also been nil.
And yet, there is even more. Prof. Jones’ ‘Physics’ enables him to state that the Free-Fall Collapse Times argument for Controlled Demolitions is a “weak argument”. So what we are being told is, basically, “Galileo, go fuck yourself”. Well, according to the Physics I did at Walpole Grammar School, Isleworth Polytechnic, and Brunel University, it should be the other way round.
Importance of David Ray Griffin & Steven E Jones to 9/11 “Truth”
As you can see, these two names are totally out of place under the heading “Research”.
That heading was deep sarcasm. Or maybe a deliberate typo. It should be Research?
There does remain one important aspect of 9/11 “Truth” attributable to these two professors.
By bringing out their ‘thesis’ when they did (2004/2005), the ‘timeline’ on the real Truth has been moved from 2001/2002 forwards by 3 years. Thus providing the perps (in the form of the Media) with less accusation of ‘not knowing’ – when the Truth finally emerges.
There is deep suspicion that was their job.
The Kapslock Kings
The Kapslock Kings tend to shift into Caps Lock quite often when they post into Forums, Chat Rooms, etc. Writing on the Internet in capital letters is recognised as equivalent to ‘shouting’. In many cases the text itself, plus the capitals, could easily be interpreted as ‘screaming’, ‘ranting’, ‘raving’ … indeed even to the point of ‘frothing at the mouth’ (in some cases I have seen).
What do you do with this? There is only one possible answer. Ignore it. Don’t take a blind bit of notice of it … other than to note, in your mind, the name of the person who wrote it. If this person persists in this mode, on a regular basis, that person is a Troll.
The reasons are pretty simple, and pretty clear.
The expression of science and logic does not require capital letters – except at the start of sentences, proper names, etc. (the standard rules of grammar).
On the other hand you must realise that 9/11 obeyed to Laws of Physics, which is science.
Consequently any facet of 9/11 can be expressed under the standard rules of grammar.
Therefore, if a ‘point’ is being made outside those grammatical rules, the ‘point’ is highly unlikely to be valid, no matter what is being said, and no matter how plausible it may sound (if you mentally translate it into lower-case).
It is actually known that many people ‘turn off’ when they see this thing happening, anyway. It is my guess that these Trolls are (a) Either paid to do it anyway, (b) Too stupid or arrogant to realise the off-putting nature, (c) Do it simply out of compulsion to provoke a reaction, or (d) Are anyway mentally deranged.
The very last thing to do, therefore, is to waste your time engaging them.
Other, more subtle, Trolls
There is one Troll on the BreakForNews and 911Blogger Forum whose modus operandi is to post a picture of an ‘Exit Door’. The idea is that he (or she) is ‘showing you the door’. He (or she) is a time-waster, and manages to ‘dominate’ a topic with these pictures. Quite why this person is allowed to get away with this behaviour is anyone’s guess.
Unlike many of us, this Troll uses a pseudonym (actually “Stallion4”). If anyone ever reads any of my posts you will see that I don’t (generally) use a pseudonym. Use of a pseudonym (in my case) only occurs where the name “Veronica” has already been claimed by someone else. (Why don’t I use “VeronicaChapman”, then? I don’t particularly like my surname … never have in my entire life. So, if I need a pseudonym, I use “Cassie_O_Calculator” … simply because it is a nice play on words, and tends to be unique).
This is not to say that the use of a pseudonym is ‘suspicious’. As we all know, and as pointed out above, it can occur for many normal reasons.
The essence of Troll Detection is more subtle than any pseudonym.
It actually comes down (to a large extent) to “What have you done then?”. Expanded, that means “What is your contribution to 9/11 Research … to the 9/11 Truth Movement?”.
Have you written articles? Have you written a book (that sticks to the Truth)? Made a video (that sticks to the Truth)? Have you actually gone out and campaigned to strangers (sticking to the Truth)? Etc. Primarily “Have you made any unique contribution to the research (sticking to the Truth)?”. (If so, what was it?)
You see, there is a great deal of difference between ‘posting links to other peoples work’ in Forums, and actually working out some aspect oneself … and sticking to the Truth.
For example, there is a Troll on the UK 9/11 Campaign Forum (actually “IronSnot”) who is often ‘going to do something in a few months time’. And so on. In others words acting ‘big’, while just stringing everyone else along. His statistics show a ‘Major Poster’ … while his achievement is … what?
The answer is ‘largely to discredit any valid point someone else may make’. That’s the true answer.
Me? I do not claim any particular credit for any individual research, although I have contributed to that of others (both in the 7/7 & 9/11 contexts). I have supplied information, and ideas. (And effort).
But I do not go around discrediting others who have made a serious contribution, and I have written articles, and I have campaigned to strangers.
I have done enough, in my time, to enable me to write this article, make the statements I have made, and to back them up with evidence, if necessary.
The REAL 9/11 Truth
So you have read this far, and you are still wondering where the real Truth lies?
Unfortunately you need to get your head around the fact that not only were the ‘recognised perps’ involved, so was the Media.
Bearing in mind how hard the Media has lied subsequently (Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, etc.) … is this really too hard to accept?
If it is, then read no further. Go on in your own search for some Truth. You won’t find it, but the best of British.
The Truth can be fairly simply stated thus:
1) The Towers were brought down by Controlled Demolitions, using a technology that we can only guess at. We can make guesses, but we cannot know, precisely. Possibly some form of Tesla Technology (quite likely). It is also quite likely that these weapons were used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon.
2) There were no Big Boeings. ‘Something’ hit the North Tower – it is called ‘Blobs 11’. The South Tower was ‘hit’ by a cartoon – a CGI – a computer-generated-image – called Cartoon 175. Whether or not anything hit the Pentagon is debatable. However it certainly was not AA77. UA93 did not crash in Shankesville, Pennsylvania, neither was it shot down. It landed in Cleveland, Ohio, the passengers were disembarked … and never seen again.
3) Consequent to (2), above, there was no Jet Fuel to argue over (and that ties in with (1), above), and no ‘Stand Down’ (there was nothing to ‘Stand Down’ for. If a ‘Stand Down’ order was given, then it would have been to prevent the interception of ‘thin air’ by quizzical Fighter Pilots).
Anything that disputes these three points is either disinformation or complete rubbish.
You say all that, Veronica … but you haven’t proved anything!
I haven’t proved anything.
I never intended to. The proof you are looking for is in the links I’ve posted, all the way through.
Do you want me to read it for you? Is that what you want?
Expecting the fully-complicit Media to come to our aid is, at best, a faint hope (but not totally impossible, I suppose). However, when talking to them, it is wise to remember that they will ‘shaft’ you as best they can.
We have succeeded in getting this far in five years. We must expect to continue in this mode for as long as necessary before the dam breaks.
1) Here is a still taken from a CNN Video on the day 11th September, 2001 in Manhattan
So. Sod the Laws of Physics. We now have ‘self-healing buildings’ do we?
3) Here are the equations:
Free-fall Times = UNCONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES
Free-fall Times = UNCONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES = Not available to ’19 Arabs’
Free-fall Times = UNCONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES = Only available to ‘Inside Jobbers’
Free-fall Times = UNCONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES = Inside Job
Could it be simpler?
6) In the intervening years, between the writing of this essay and mid-2008, it is now absolutely clear that when I say (above) “There is deep suspicion that was their job”, that should read “That was obviously their job, and they have achieved their diversionary tactics in massive proportions”. So-called “9/11 Truth” has been successfully diverted away from the real truth into various limited hangout cul-de-sacs – due largely to Jones-Jabbering & Griffin-Grovelling. In mid-2008 the entire world is no nearer bringing any ‘perps’ to account, than it was in 2001. Instead, an awful lot of hand-wringing has taken place, of course. There is one exception to this. The No-Planes Position (see above) has resulted in Qui Tam Class Action Law Suits against the NIST Report. These “claims that NIST has defrauded the American taxpayer, for the reasons stated in the suit” were instigated by Dr. Morgan Reynolds & Dr. Judy Wood. If these fail, then we are all into “JFK-killed-by-Oswald”-land, all over again. In which case we might as well not bother, and it has all been for nothing. There is absolutely zero chance of ‘going legal’ – and winning - using the Griffin/Jones/Jones/Zwicker/vonKleist/Tarpley (etc.) Planehugging bullshit. Anyone with more than two brain cells laughs at it, let alone a court of law.
Oh? You can go into court - with a self-healing building - and win? Can you? Well, lah-de-doo-de-dah!