Saturday, January 29, 2011
Call to Action!
TO: Citizens of the World Working for Peace
ACTION NEEDED: Protest the Condemnation of Professor Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.
WHY: Professor Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, has demonstrated courage in saying that there are “gaps and contradictions” in the official account of 9/11. He has been “condemned” for such conservative statements about 9/11 by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and US Ambassador Susan Rice, and Ambassador Rice has called for his removal from his unpaid post at the U.N.
Professor Falk has been devoted to world peace during his lifetime, and he is arguably the world's most qualified legal scholar in the Palestine-Israel issue in the UN where he is very much needed.
Write as a citizen (not part of a movement) to both U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to let them know you disapprove of their censoring statements to Professor Richard Falk, and that you call for an apology to him.
Five sample letters follow. Please do this as soon as you are able. Time is of the essence. And please forward to your peace and justice contacts and those working for peace for Palestinians and Israelis.
Link to Richard Falk’s blog on this issue: http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/?s=9%2F11+gaps&submit=Search
Links to related stories:
Ambassador Susan Rice:
Hon. Susan Rice
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
799 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Or use the form at this link (go to “contact us”):
Or use this social media:
Secretary Ban Ki-moon:
Hon. Ban Ki-moon
Secretary General, The United Nations
New York, NY 10017
Or email: SG@un.org
Five Sample Letters to Ambassador Rice and Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon
1) From Adnan Zuberi, student, University of Toronto
Wed, Jan 26, 2011
To: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Princeton's Dept. of Politics Chair Prof. Milner and US Senator Mark Dayton
I am a student at the Univ. of Toronto and I have carefully examined your sudden reaction to Prof. Falk's comments regarding 9/11. You were very quick in saying that his statement that 9/11 is a cover-up is offensive and he should be removed from the UN. However Sir, if you actually bother to read some of the statements by US officials such as Senator Dayton (provided below), you will see that Prof. Falk is just stating facts that are far from new.
I am confident that Princeton University will not be intimidated or pressured by your misinformed statements and I hope Princeton supports their own professor. True academics are concerned with facts and truths whereas you Sir are concerned about how "offensive" it appears.
Adnan Zuberi B. Ed Candidate, Univ. of Toronto
Senator Mark Dayton said: NORAD "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people." Direct video reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nRoGNqiHBY
Senator Max Cleland, Former 9/11 Commissioner, said "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up." Reference: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover
2) From David Ray Griffin, PhD., Professor Emeritus
January 27, 2011
Dear Ambassador Rice:
I have found your recent claims about Richard Falk, along with similar claims by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, to be poorly supported.
Speaking through his Chef de Cabinet, Vijay Nambiar, on January 24, Ban Ki-moon described as “preposterous” Falk’s comments about 9/11, in which he described the official account as containing “gaps and contradictions.” Ambassador Rice, you declared Falk’s comments to be “despicable” and “noxious.”
But as the website Patriots Question 9/11 shows, questions about the official account have been expressed by over 3,000 notable persons, including architects, engineers, pilots, professors, medical professionals, artists, entertainers, government officials, law enforcement officers, military officers, and intelligence officers. Secretary Ban Ki-moon and Ambassador Rice, you have both “condemned” Falk’s comments. Do you really want to condemn all of these highly respected people for honestly stating their views?
Just as the Secretary-General claimed that Falk’s comments were “an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack," you, Ambassador Rice, called Falk’s comments “deeply offensive.” But the website of Patriots Question 9/11 contains a list of more than 300 9/11 survivors and family members. Do the two of you really wish to condemn all of these 9/11 survivors and family members for having stated, frankly, that they have questions about 9/11?
I hope that you apologize to Professor Falk and all the others you have insulted with your unfounded accusations.
Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University
3) Professor Tony Hall's Comment on the UN Web page detailing Ban Ki-moon's 9/11 attack on Dr. Falk, 25 January, 2011
It is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who has discredited himself with his reactionary and ill-informed response to the interventions of Dr. Falk on the state of scholarly controversies concerning the contested events of 9/11.
Certainly Professor David Ray Griffin's ten books on the subject are key works crucial to describing the scholarly landscape of the ongoing research concerning 9/11.
Until Mr. Ban Ki-moon has done his homework on the contested interpretations of what did or did not happen on 9/11 he should restrain himself from criticizing UN staff like Dr. Falk. Dr. Falk is a learned academic who demonstrates his determination to respect human rights by doing the necessary homework to make informed observations and conclusions about the contested events of 9/11.
By not keeping himself up-to-date on the scholarship of 9/11, Mr. Ban Ki-moon is unfortunately part of the constituency that denigrates all Arabs and Muslims who have been smeared collectively by those who disseminate an unsupported interpretation of what happened on the fateful day.
We expect much better from the figurehead of the UN, an institution cheapened and demeaned by the intervention of the Secretary-General into an area on which he obviously has not been properly briefed. Decency requires that the UN Secretary-General favor evidence over the propaganda effects of a toxic public mythology that perpetuates the ruthlessness of the illegal 9/11 Wars.
Anthony J. Hall
Professor of Globalization Studies
University of Letbridge, Alberta, Canada
4) From Frances Shure, Licensed Professional Counselor
Dear Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Ambassador Rice,
Because of your condemnations of Professor Richard Falk, I cannot help thinking that you are completely uninformed, or misinformed, on the issue of 9/11. You are also displaying behavior inappropriate for officials of the UN, an organization whose mission is to promote world peace. Dr. Falk, a Jewish American, is one of the world’s preeminent scholars devoted to world peace, and currently, peace in the Palestine-Israel conflict.
According to scientific polls, Dr. Falk’s comments conservatively reflect the opinion of a major portion of the US population and populations of other countries. As an example, please note that a 2006 Time Magazine article reported:
“A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.”
In another example, a 2008 World Public Opinion poll of 17 nations outside the US found that majorities in only nine of the countries believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.
There are also many professional organizations researching and reporting on the events of 9/11, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org), and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (http://www.stj911.org).
In addition, the national Green Party of the US calls for a truly independent investigation, as does the Colorado Democratic Party. Here is the statement from this party’s 2010 Platform:
“WHEREAS many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future.”
Therefore, not only are descriptions such as “noxious” and “despicable” unbecoming of officials in your positions, but they are insulting, not only to Professor Falk, but to millions of people around the world.
Professor Falk is sorely needed as a voice for peace in the UN. I hope you will do the research needed to inform yourselves of the reasons Professor Falk made his blog statements, and make a public apology to him.
I look forward to your response,
Frances Shure, Licensed Professional Counselor
Denver, CO, USA
5) From Earl Staelin, Attorney
Dear Ambassador Rice,
This is to express my strong disapproval of your attack on Richard Falk for expressing his opinions about the events of 9/11. Mr. Falk is a distinguished international legal scholar whose knowledge of and respect for international law puts him in a unique position to promote a just and lasting peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine, in line with President Obama’s goals and statements, and based upon international law.
The events of 9/11 were used to justify the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq War despite the fact that the U.S. never provided any of its promised evidence to Afghanistan that bin Laden and al-Qaeda had caused the 9/11 attacks; the FBI has stated it has no evidence proving that bin Laden caused the 9/11 attacks, and it has been well established that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
Many prominent and respected individuals have also raised serious questions about the credibility of the Bush administration’s claim that 19 Arab hijackers caused 9/11 and call for a new independent investigation. These include:
Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, and a former editor of the Wall Street Journal; Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst who provided the daily intelligence briefing to several presidents including George H.W. Bush; Robert Baer, former CIA officer and subject of the acclaimed movie Syriana; Robert Bowman, Ph.D., former jet fighter pilot, original director of the “Star Wars” program under Presidents Ford and Carter, and former head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at the US Air Force Institute of Technology; Dwain Deets, former Director for Research Engineering and Aerospace Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, where he received the NASA Exceptional Service Award; Steve Jones, Ph.D., retired professor of physics at Brigham Young University and internationally distinguished physicist; Lynn Margulis, world-renowned biologist; Richard Gage, A.I.A., architect who has designed tall steel buildings and founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which now has over 1,400 architects and engineers who call for a new investigation; Dr. Niels Harrit, professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, and expert in nanotechnology; David Ray Griffin, who has written nine books on 9/11, one of which was a Publisher’s Weekly “Pick of the Week”; former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel who served in military intelligence in the 1950s and in 1971 entered over 4,000 pages of the (until then secret) Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.
There are many more distinguished scholars and leaders in numerous fields who question the official story and believe there should be a new investigation, which this time would include any evidence that leads to various U.S. government entities.
It is of particular concern that the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, had undisclosed conflicts of interest, including his key role in writing the Bush administration’s illegal preemptive war doctrine which was also used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is has also been shown that the 9/11 Commission only investigated and reported information that supported their predetermined position that al-Qaeda masterminded 9/11, and failed to investigate or report any of the large volume of information that undermined the 9/11 Commission’s position.
The primary purpose of the United Nations has been to promote and establish peace under international law. It is a misuse of your position as Ambassador to attack a public official such as Mr. Falk for his responsible exercise of the right of free speech, particularly when the evidence strongly suggests his position calling for a new investigation has been widely supported by so many prominent scholars and authorities and is backed by a large body of credible evidence. As Ambassador you should be strongly defending Mr. Falk and his right to speak out without calling into question his position in the U.N.’s Middle East effort to achieve a lasting peace.
We strongly urge you to retract your comment and to stand firmly behind Mr. Falk’s continuation in his present position.
Thank you for your consideration.
Attorney at Law
Thursday, January 27, 2011
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" ~ Albert Einstein (Apparently... Most 'Einstein Quotes' on the internet are misattributions, and indeed it seems this one is), or put another way: Put a nutbar in your pie hole!
Nutbars? Fruitcakes? Potato chips? What's with all the food analogies?
This brief clip of Karen talking about 9/11 has convinced more of my friends than any other...
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
4. Bursill and Chandler decry the "If X then Y" nature of the CIT theories, where X is "the plane flew north of the Citgo" and Y is "then Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon". But Chandler does the same thing (and Bursill gushes that this is the most incontrovertible evidence he's ever found) when he says, "If Building 7 fell at freefall then it must have been a controlled demolition."There's a difference. It's not the logic of 'if X then Y' that's the problem, the problem is CIT have not proven 'X'. If CIT had indeed proven beyond all doubt that the plane flew north of citgo, then the flyover theory must indeed be true, but they haven't. A few witnesses putting the plane on the wrong side is not proof. Especially since other witnesses put the plane on the official flight path and others actually saw the plane hit. With WTC7 however, we have proven that the building collapsed at freefall. It's been proven by a number of video analyses and NIST has even acknowledged this.
Put simply, with WTC7 it's:
If X then Y. We know X is true. Therefore Y is true.But with CIT it's:
If X then Y. Here's evidence for X, here's evidence against X.
Ignore the evidence against X and Y is true!
Monday, January 24, 2011
It's a collection of talking points on WTC-7:As we have demonstrated on this blog these are all valid points, but the issue of those "roaring" fires is a bit more scattered than the other subjects so I'm going to focus in on it. As "debunker" Mark Roberts demonstrates on his page "Eyewitness Accounts of WTC 7 Fires" there are indeed eyewitness accounts that state the building was fully engulfed in flames, but the evidence and official reports show this not to be the case.
1. Three buildings, two planes
2. Freefall speed into its own footprint
3. Accounts of explosions (note that Corr fails to mention the firefighters who talk about the "roaring" fires in WTC-7)
4. 9-11 Commission didn't mention its collapse
Typical horsecrap from a horse's ass.
The BBC documentary "The Third Tower" shows that the large amount of smoke on the south side of the building is the main reason observers believed the building was fully ablaze.
After the airing of this program JREF forum "debunkers" followed Steve Spak's lead when he called Gage's statements about negative air pressure "insane" stating such things as, "Tricky dicky believes WTC 7 sucks, 'negative pressure' sucked smoke from WTC 6 and made it appear that WTC 7 was on fire. this theory is the only one that he made up by himself as far as i know."
In a debate with "the debunking director" of the forum Gage was asked to finish the adage, "Where there is smoke there is fire," to which Gage replied that this is what one would expect, but where there is fire there should also be evidence of... well... fire!
Photographs and footage later discovered vindicated Gage, as they showed the same phenomenon of negative low air pressure had occurred with WTC 1 after the collapse of WTC 2 making it appear as if the entire building was on fire.
Skip to 10:25 in the following clip to see video of the above effect and proof that the majority of smoke around WTC 7 came from WTC 5 & 6. Click here to see just pictures showing that most of the smoke came from WTC 5 & 6.
Now to the official reports. As stated by the BBC, "According to the official investigators, the main fires were concentrated on floors 6 through to 13, except floor 10. And there were fires initially on some of the upper floors."
The "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation" webpage states that the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working.
The FEMA report, section 5.3.3, states that, "Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors."
So, the highest out of control fire was on the 13th floor, the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working, and the building was designed to limit fire and smoke spread between floors.
In other words, "debunkers" are contradicting the official story in an attempt to defend it.
It is also important to note that when Steve Spak says that he "saw fire coming out of some of these windows," the picture he holds up is of the southeast wall, not the south face of the building covered in smoke. As WTC7.net points out, "This photograph (of the southeast wall) from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames."
We also have visual evidence of fire on the north face.
The foreknowledge of the collapse spoke of in this video is another interesting aspect to all of this because the fires it shows are unsubstantial compared to other skyscraper fires, and we need only look to other footage taken by Steve Spak on 9/11 of WTC Building 5 for an example. As the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website pointed out in a recent article which compares the other WTC buildings that did not collapse to the three that collapsed completely, "World Trade Center Building 5 was fully engulfed in flames - burning far more extensively than the few small isolated pockets of fire in WTC 7. If any WTC building was going to collapse by 'normal office fires' (the official cause of WTC 7’s destruction) it would be this one. Yet, it did not collapse."
If WTC 7 was possibly poised to collapse it is strange that there were no widespread reports that WTC 5 might do the same given the severity of the fires. The evidence indicates that there were very few individuals that concluded WTC 7 would come down based on direct observation, but rather parroted information passed down by individuals that also somehow predicted the unprecedented and unexpected fall of the Twin Towers, as evinced by the fact that so many firefighters bet their lives on the fact that the Towers were reported to be able to sustain such damage and fire. For the few who did believe WTC 7 might come down based on their own observations it must be pointed out that their opinion would have been skewed after just seeing two 110 story skyscapers crush themselves.
As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT. pointed out in his post "Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings," "Many debunkers have suggested that the partial collapse of WTC 5 supports the theory that fire could have brought down Building 7. In fact, if anything, it does just the opposite."
If you agree that Building 7 needs to be re-investigated please visit the new action page at the "BuildingWhat?" campaign's website posted this past Wednesday.
Update: From the book Mounting Evidence - Why We Need a New Investigation of 9/11 by Dr. Paul W. Rea, published September 2011:
The WTC-7 Fires...
The fire reports ranged widely. While no one has talked about a towering inferno or even a huge conflagration, Fire Capt. Brenda Berkman did affirm “fire on every floor” (S. Hagan and M. Carouba Women at Ground Zero p. 213). But perceptions do differ, even among professionals, and it would be easy to confuse a lot of smoke with a lot of fire. Mark Jacobson, a journalist who’d reported large fires, recalled “the whole building wasn’t on fire”; instead, he wrote, “there was a lot of fire coming out of a few floors” (NY Magazine 3/37/06). The photographic record also supports the conclusion that the building experienced medium to hot fires on a few floors.
Even those promoting the hypothesis of destruction from fire damage have come in way under Capt. Berkman’s estimate. According to NIST, itself a prime defender of this theory, fires burned on only ten of the building’s 47 floors—and only on six did they grow and burn out of control (NCSTAR1A p. xxxvi). Moreover, officials with Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) of New York who entered WTC-7 said “there was a fire, but they did not think the building would collapse” (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00174.pdf). Thus Con Ed personnel apparently felt the building was safe to enter, reporting only “a fire,” not the “large fires” claimed by many proponents of the fire theory.
It was the Fire Department, then, that predicted the building was going to collapse. Granted, a walkthrough is not an inspection of a tall building. But if in fact the fires were small, on what basis did building security personnel and the FDNY chiefs make a different determination?
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Some great info about 9/11 from Jim Corr, including the nanothermite. He knows his stuff. Lord Monckton focused solely on the issue of climate sensitivity, which is the most important question in the climate change debate: How much does CO2 affect temperature?
The two debunkers in the audience were pathetic. The statement that 'the science of NIST is sound' should have raised a red flag for Monckton since he gets that alot from AGW proponents. Sadly, Monckton had to 'respectfully disagree' with Jim about 9/11.
Not surprising really. Some day all these different movements will wake up and realise they are all fighting the same battle and support eachother. Sadly everyone's too afraid of being discredited by association with everyone else do so. I've been criticised in the past for linking several topics together in my Youtube videos. Well ... those people are just gonna love my next one! Nine different scientific, medical and environmental controversies all rolled into one, plus a general exposing of the eugenics agenda, academic persecution and the Randi crowd. It's gonna be epic. That's if I can ever get round to finishing it. Stupid job. Stupid computer problems.
Despite the best efforts of the US Government "investigators", the debunking fraternity and the mainstream media it appears that very few people trust the official 911 narrative.
Indeed, many people who might not fully understand the scientific evidence that proves 911 was an inside job are likely to a priori question the demeanor of US officials and the material used by debunkers (and the MSM) to "back up" the Government account.
Such a cynical attitude is not surprising considering all the barefaced lies we have witnessed in relation to the War in Iraq, political assassinations and the corrupt dealings we've seen between the US State and Wall Street. The psycho/social environment is not conducive towards people believing ANYTHING the US Government puts out as fact.
The 911 Debunkers are facing two insurmountable problems; the general population's propensity to disbelieve statements coming from the (discredited as a whole) US Government and the obvious hard science that has proven the attacks involved inside help.
You cannot fool all of the people all of the time !
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Here is the chapter on 9/11:
Download audio book link
Jesse Ventura: 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read Audio Book
Rep. Cohen: Ventura’s Show Promotes Terrorism
TruTV's 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' - 9/11
Jesse Ventura's Pentagon Episode & a response to Neighborhood Rationalist
My take on Ventura's 9/11 Show
Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!
Pat Curley will Always be the Better Ringmaster
To our knowledge, there has never been a single violent incident at any Zeitgeist meeting or showing worldwide, or any call to violence by any member of the Zeitgeist Movement or fan of the Zeitgeist films.
Jared Loughner's friend who claimed Zeitgeist was one of Loughner's favorite films hadn't seen him in two years.
Like the Zeitgeist Movement, we here at Freethought Nation, Truth Be Known and Stellar House Publishing are diametrically opposed to war and violence.
Public Statement by Peter Joseph
Miley Cyrus wants to murder innocent children!
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
He has also joined in with the Wakefield crucifixion. I'm kind of sick of this. All this fuss over a thirteen-year-old, five-page pilot study that came to absolutely no conclusions. Shermer's right when he says people make connections where there is none. He and his fellow skeptics are guilty of just that. Wakefield's study sparked doubts about the vaccine safety. Children died. Therefore, Wakefield is obviously an evil man who is to blame for those deaths. Again, one could make a comparison with those who blame Darwin for the holocaust - an accusation skeptics rightly reject.
The alleged fraud by the way was impossible to commit. Brian Deer points to apparent differences between NHS/GP records and descriptions of the children's symptoms in the paper as evidence of intentional misrepresentation. But the authors of the paper didn't have access to those records at the time, so there was nothing to intentionally misrepresent! Wakefield appeared on Good Morning America yesterday to defend himself. He'll also be in-studio on AJ today. It's interesting that the media has neither interviewed any of the "Lancet 12" parents or any of his 12 co-authors.
2) I often say that ScrewLooseChange is now little more than a 9/11 Truth gossip blog. Well it seems even that is being generous. Yesterday, Pat wondered when Richard Gage would retract his 'endorsement' of CIT.
Errr ... Pat ... Richard Gage never endorsed CIT. He later clarified his initial review:
Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon.Gossip fail.
4) I finally got round to watching What In The World Are They Spraying? yesterday. Shocking stuff. I hadn't done any research on chemtrails before so it was all new to me. There are so many serious environmental concerns: deforestation, smog, islands of trash in the pacific, biowarfare, Depleted Uranium, electromagnetic pollution, HAARP, toxic water, oil spills (and oil dispersants), the EPA telling you your air is safe to breathe, overfishing, mass animal deaths, GMO, bat-shit crazy scientists and their "geoengineering" experiments etc. Yet we're supposed to ignore most of those and focus on "climate change". Greenies, wake up! They don't give a shit about the planet! They're a bunch of nihilistic, megalomaniacal, transhumanist eugenecists bent on playing god.
you're gonna have big trouble. And we'll have warfare."
~ Richard Seed, Human Cloning Researcher,
TechnoCalyps - Part II - Preparing for the Singularity (18:44)
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Jared Lee Loughner (three names!), the latest nutbar to go postal, was apparently a 'truther'. His friend in the video above describes how he was a fan of the movie Loose Change. Other reports say he was also a fan of Zeitgeist.
Not surprisingly, the debunkers are once again using this to demonize us. Pat Curley has written a number of posts, including Truther Body Count, in which he summarizes the high-profile cases of alleged truthers murdering people. Notice he recycles the Anti-Defamation League's thoroughly debunked BS about Poplawski being an Alex Jones fan. Pat concludes...
Paranoid schizophrenics are probably more likely to become Truthers than the general population, and probably more likely to have voices in their heads telling them to kill someone.And arrogant narcissists are probably more likely to become debunkers than the general population, and probably more likely to exhibit the Fishsticks mentality where they believe themselves to be awesome, when really they're just douchebags. Pat being a prime example! Is paranoid schizophrenia more prevalent amonst truthers than the general population? Such a study has never been done, but I expect alot of truthers would probably be wrongly diagnosed as having paranoid delusions, like Clare Swinney was.
The mainstream media is also emphasizing Loughner's 9/11 conspiracy beliefs. One example is this AOL News article:
9/11 TrutherSo now if you believe 9/11 was an inside job, you don't just offend the family members, you want to kill nine year old girls who were born on 9/11!
One former Loughner friend told The Associated Press that in high school Loughner expressed a belief in the 9/11 "Truther" movement -- the idea that the government was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. This makes the death of 9-year-old Christine Green, who was born on Sept. 11, 2011 [sic], all the more poignant.
Loughner's friend also said he enjoyed smoking Salvia Divinorum, a hallucinogenic herb recently made famous by Miley Cyrus. So using the propagandist's flawed logic, I guess that means she's a killer too!
Why is it when you point out that the systematic genocide of six million jews at the hands of the Nazis was driven by Darwinian ideology, the 'liberals' and 'skeptics' insist that that in no way discredits belief in Darwinism; yet when the odd deranged nut who happens to believe 9/11 was a false-flag kills a few people, those same 'liberals' and 'skeptics' shamelessly exploit the tragedy to smear us?
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Joseph Nobles of ae911truth.info points out in his post "Explosion on 'Seven’s Exploding' Video is Not Original," that the firefighter in the clip does not say "seven's exploding," but rather "the city’s explodin." After taking this into consideration and listening closely I agree, but as is admitted by 911myths.com on the page "A WTC7 explosion video," "The firefighter's location isn't too far from WTC7. If a bomb were to go off in the building then it's reasonable to believe they would hear it..." Also, after the explosion is heard the firefighter points in the direction of WTC 7.
At first "debunkers" tried to attribute the sound to an exploding fuel tank, but comparisons of the two do not equate, however, a linear shaped charge fits the bill quite well. Here is a great video from Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Adam Taylor highlighting these and other points.
Now "debunkers" have moved on to questioning the authenticity of the sound. 911 Myths reveals that the clip first appeared in a documentary called "9/11 Stories From The City" and states that, "...Being a Hungarian version with their own voiceover: the original volume is dropped considerably, which makes it hard to tell if the explosion sound is the same."
Well, here is the clip. There is this thing called a volume control, turn it up real high, hell, go all the way up and play it a few times. Also listen to see if there is "no echo on the explosion" as a JREF forum member on Nobles' page states.
The clip also appeared in another documentary that aired on HBO, which just so happened to cut it off right before the explosion. This is circumstantial evidence that there is a loud explosion that they didn't want to show.
9/11 Myths points out that based on the position of the sun we can tell when the explosion took place, concluding that, "If the sound did occur around 7 hours before WTC7 collapsed, as the evidence suggests, then there's no obvious reason why we should make a connection between those two events."
However, there is evidence that the demolition of WTC 7 was botched and supposed to have been timed with, or shortly after, the fall of the towers to make it less obvious.
On the 9/11 Myths page another JREF forum member is quoted saying that the explosion video "...was probably shot between the times that WTC2 and WTC1 collapsed, or it may have been somewhat after WTC1 collapsed -- perhaps even during the collapse."
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Youtuber "TheSkepticalIdealist" recently commented on my video "Demolition Expert Debunks the Debunkers" and tried to misrepresent the expertise of Tom Sullivan.
I pointed out to him that Sullivan's position at CDI was not just a photographer, but also a Powder Carrier. However, this wasn't good enough for this "skeptical idealist."
He linked me to the nyc.gov "study material for the certificate of fitness examination for powder carrier." Apparently, he either missed this part of the document or didn't understand what he was reading:
All explosives must be stored in magazines specially made for that purpose. A magazine must be approved and have a permit to store explosives. Magazines must be under the direct supervision of a magazine keeper holding a Certificate of Fitness. Magazines must be kept locked when explosives or blasting caps are inside. Only the Blaster, Powder Carrier and Magazine Keeper may have keys to the Magazines and accept delivery of explosives at the work site.
So, Tom Sullivan was in charge of the exact aspect of handling explosives that this "idealist" said he wasn't in charge of.
It astounds me that several debunkers seem to have trouble with simple reading these days. First Joseph Nobles misunderstood what David Griscom said about the Active Thermitic Material paper. Then Pat Curley of ScrewLooseChange couldn't be bothered to read a post from 2008 before accusing someone of lying. Is reading getting too difficult for debunkers?
Now, am I implying that all debunkers can't read just because they're debunkers? Absolutely not. I would never make that sort of judgment of debunkers as a whole, because I am not a debunker, just a "rebunker." :)
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
I always thought the truth about the Reichstag fire was common knowledge, although I do remember scanning through a JREF post when LC:AAC was released which tried to debunk the bit about the Reichstag, but I didn't think much of it.
The Nazi plot interpretation was popularized by the classic 1960 book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
The whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known. Nearly all those who knew it are now dead, most of them slain by Hitler in the months that followed. Even at Nuremburg the mystery could not be entirely unraveled, though there is enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the Nazis who planned the arson and carried it out for their own political ends.Pat quoted a ScienceBlogs blog post (why are there so many truth denial blogs on that site?!) by 'Orac', which cited a couple of historical works that support the Reichstag 'lone nut' theory.
From Goering's Reichstag President's Palace an underground passage, built to carry the central heating system, ran to the Reichstag building. Through this tunnel Karl Ernst, a former hotel bellhop who had become the Berlin S.A. leader, led a small detachment of storm troopers on the night of February 27 to the Reichstag, where they scattered gasoline and self-igniting chemicals and then made their way quickly back to the palace the way they had come. At the same time a half-witted Dutch Communist with a passion for arson, Marinus van der Lubbe, had made his way into the huge, darkened and to him unfamiliar building and set some small fires of his own. This feeble-minded pyromaniac was a godsend to the Nazis. He had been picked up by the S.A. a few days before after having been overheard in a bar boasting that he had attempted to set fire to several buildings and that he was going to try the Reichstag next.
The coincidence that the Nazis had found a demented Communist arsonist who was out to to do exactly what they themselves had determined to do seems incredible but is nevertheless supported by the evidence. The idea for the fire almost certainly originated with Goebbels and Goering. Hans Gisevius, an official in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior at the time, testified at Nuremburg that "it was Goebbels who first thought of setting the Reichstag on fire", and Rudolf Diels, the Gestapo chief, added in an affadavit that "Goering knew exactly how the fire was to be started" and had ordered him to prepare, prior to the fire, a list of people who were to be arrested immediately after it.
One work Orac neglected to mention is the 2001 book, Der Reichstagbrand - Wie Geschichte gemacht wird (The Reichstag Fire - How History is Made). According to a review:
In years of meticulous research, the two authors of the book, historian Alexander Bahar and physicist and psychologist Wilfried Kugel, carried out the first comprehensive evaluation of the 50,000 pages of original court, state attorney office and secret police (Gestapo) files that had been locked away in Moscow and East Berlin until 1990. The result is a remarkable and explosive, more than 800-page document that for the first time provides almost complete circumstantial evidence that the Nazis prepared and set the Reichstag fire themselves.A Wikipedia user on the talk page for Marinus Van Der Lubbe calls the false-flag theory "CT nonsense" and links to a german review of Der Reichstagsbrand, which reads like one of Shermer's attack pieces - it even compares people who believe the fire was a Nazi plot to Holocaust deniers!
Responsibility for the Reichstag Fire was a constant source of debate between German historians after the Second World War. In the early 1960’s, the attempt was made to establish the hypothesis of van der Lubbe as the sole culprit—in particular by Rudolf Augstein’s magazine Der Spiegel and the “amateur historian” and intelligence officer Fritz Tobias. To this very day, some prominent German historians base themselves on this hypothesis and still attempt to deny the guilt of the Nazis. With their new book Der Reichstagbrand, Alexander Bahar and Wilfried Kugel have provided authoritative evidence to finally dispel the longstanding controversy.
Ok, I understand the interest in historical accuracy, but it's strange how they get so emotional about it. I mean we're talking about the Nazis here. And we're debating whether or not they set fire to a building! It's almost as if they're intent on denying that false-flags even exist. Next they'll be denying it's even done in fiction, arguing Senator Palpatine didn't invade his own planet in a plot to make himself Supreme Chancellor lol.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act was named after a police officer who died of a respiratory disease he contracted during the 9/11 rescue operations. The bill was one of the last measures Congress passed before adjourning in December.To me it feels like this bill is the perfect fit for the saying "too little, too late" but at least it's better than nothing. I can only hope that the money is well spent and helps the first responders to the best possible extent.
Some Republicans tried to block the measure, saying they were concerned with how to pay for the bill. They dropped their opposition after lawmakers struck a compromise to reduce the costs.
The $4.2 billion measure will be paid for with a fee on some foreign companies that get U.S. government procurement contracts
And lastly, lets not forget who was responsible for all of this:
To all of our readers; stay rational and keep debunking the debunkers, things are looking up for the movement.
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog stated today that physicist David Chandler "is hardly an exemplar of the highest standards of intellectual rigor."
He points to a post from April 22, 2009 entitled "When Will David Chandler Fix His Errors?" that contains two broken video links from Chandler. Apparently our friend Joesph Nobles caught a "major error" in one of Chandler's videos. Chandler admitted his sarcastically dubbed "spectacularly incompetent shameful error" and after a while removed the videos unbeknownst to Pat. He noted, however, that the error had "zero bearing on the substance of the horizontal ejection issue." Pat left that part of his quote out though and says that Chandler failed to admit the opposite.
In April of 2010 Chandler posted a new video on the subject with further measurements.
So, who is debunking who?
In August on 2009 Scootle published a blog entitled "A response to the nuttier response to David Chandler's nutty claims," he states:
A debunker has posted a video in response to David Chandler's recent video "South Tower Smoking Guns".
The first point I agree with, it probably was just smoke escaping, but their response to Chandler's second smoking gun only focuses on the trail aspect, and not the much more damning fact that the object is falling faster than freefall, as if it was launched downwards. A much more obvious downward ejection can be seen in photographs and videos of the north tower's destruction...
In September of 2010 Scootle found this video.
The video above is continous and pretty much square on, so I thought I'd use it to see how much time there was between the start of the north tower's collapse, and the moment the beam disappears behind WTC7. As the video shows, it was somewhere between 6.7 and 6.8 seconds. The north tower was 417 meters tall, and WTC7 was 186 meters tall, so the distance between the two roofs was about 230 meters. The amount of time it would take to freefall that distance in a vaccum is about 6.85 seconds. So even if this beam was dropped from the height of the roof of the north tower at the exact moment the tower started to collapse, it still wouldn't have reached the roof of WTC7 in under 6.8 seconds. Put simply, this steel beam had to have been falling significantly faster than freefall. Obviously this is impossible unless it was launched downwards by something, such as an explosion.As mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti recently demonstrated, the use of explosives is proven by the lack of deceleration of the North Tower’s upper section. When 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening debated this issue with Chandler, Greening stated that Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to falling buildings. So, what Newton should have said is that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, except in the case of falling buildings. Why is there no call for Newton to correct his error?
Saturday, January 1, 2011
See the "Zeitgeist Sourcebook," which backs up the claims made in the film. The 9/11 section begins on page 101.
As we have made clear several times on this blog, the evidence points to a plane hitting the Pentagon. Claims the film makes about the Pentagon, therefore, should be looked at carefully. Also, claims that some of the hijackers are still alive or were trained at US military bases is best explained by mistaken identity. Overall it's a good 9/11 section, but as with any film, it is best to do further research.
(For some reason the third part of this section of Zeitgeist can't be embedded. It can be viewed here.)
"Jacque Fresco Exposed" Debunked
Conspiracy "Science" Debunked!