Home >> Trash home >>

9/11 thirteenth anniversary: we are getting there

The people who orchestrated 9/11 were discussed on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of 9/11. At that time I hadn’t given much thought to the question of mechanism or means, and endorsed ideas that I now know to be incorrect. Now that we have the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11 before us, it’s time to consider an overview of the how behind 9/11, especially in light of some very interesting developments in recent years. This overview won’t answer all questions, but the reader who looks at the references at length will undoubtedly get the impression that we’re getting there.

Some readers may recall that when 9/11 skepticism was catching on, say around the mid-2000s, some odd personalities seemed to discredit the skeptics by engaging in apparent instances of strawman sockpuppeting. A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag identity adopted by controlled opposition to make genuine opposition look ludicrous. An apparent attempt to discredit skeptics was the argument that no planes hit the twin towers.

In recent years, however, there’s been a noticeable increase in the proportion of skeptics who’ve endorsed the argument that no planes hit the twin towers on 9/11. 9/11 skeptics have organized major international conferences; recent ones were held in Toronto (2012) and Vancouver (2014). The Vancouver 2014 conference differed from earlier conferences in that it focused on no-holds-barred ideas that were catching on and the probable perpetrators, whereas the earlier ones had focused on broad consensus issues.

Many big 9/11-truth-movement names stayed away from the Vancouver conference because they didn’t want to lend any credence to some of the “wild arguments” that this conference was going to discuss, such as the “no official planes” theory that many big figures in the skeptical community, such as Jim Fetzer, have endorsed. So what has caused this major shift in attitudes?

The No Official Planes Theory

Early on, skeptics noted that the pictures and videos of the Pentagon wreckage on 9/11 didn’t show any evidence of a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon: there just weren’t anywhere close to the debris one expects from such a strike; there was no relevant/credible video footage; and the official logistics are impossible, beyond the capabilities of a Boeing 757. See Fetzer on the official account of the Pentagon attack.

Skeptics have long noted that official pictures of the crash site of Flight 93 don’t reveal any evidence of a plane crash; also see the 911 passenger paradox.

Researchers also determined that two of the four allegedly hijacked planes on 9/11, namely Flights 11 and 77, weren’t in the air on this day or at least no credible proof can be found that they were, and that Flights 93 and 175, which were in the air on 9/11, were de-registered by the FAA in September 2005, not September 2001.

Things started taking an interesting turn with Dmitri Khalezov publicizing some technical issues. In a nutshell, the body of a passenger jet is basically made up of a hardened form of aluminum that is nevertheless softer than steel. The engines use steel extensively, and the nose of a plane is fiberglass or plastic. There’s zero chance of a roughly hollow hardened aluminum shell slicing through a robust steel frame even if this shell is flying at supersonic speeds. In other words, the planes that allegedly crashed into the twin towers should’ve part-splattered and crumpled outside the buildings on impact; there would’ve been a fireball that burned outside the building; the outer steel frame of the building would’ve sustained some denting because of the impact of the engines, but the planes wouldn’t have gone inside the buildings. See 9/11thology by Dimitri Khalezov: http://www.911thology.com/. He encourages people to donwload his book (check his website for the latest version):

http://www.mediafire.com/download/i5qvsnpdvl3ivur/9-11thology-third_truth_v4_full.zip

http://www.mediafire.com/download/p8kdj6mhzcaccr6/9-11thology-third_truth_v4_full.zip

Khalezov also brought attention to numerous audio or video recordings of eyewitnesses who didn’t see planes crashing into the twin towers but saw explosions that were officially blamed on the plane crashes, sometimes explicitly saying that bombs went off inside the twin towers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YarBxlIzUk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3LXJwI-7xY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA8xD9CFu40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT-Xa7rn7K4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VpWQ88Y9WM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI2lWZY869I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c8eT99_BAs

Other relevant videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/DimitriKhalezov

So we have two sets of eyewitnesses, those who saw planes crashing into the twin towers and those who witnessed building explosions without plane crashes. Going over these testimonies, we can observe that people who reported seeing planes crash into the twin towers seem to have come up with scripted responses whereas several in the other group appear spontaneous and genuinely shocked.

Ace Baker came up with a video called “The Key” in which he discussed at length how CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) was used to create the planes that “crashed” into the twin towers. Some of this CGI had to be added during live filming, a process that was botched in a big way when the plastic/fiberglass front of one impacting plane emerged intact from the other side of the building; the official video footage goes completely black at this point. Watch “The Key” [to 9/11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds.

Unsurprisingly, the no-official-planes theory [not no-planes theory] has been catching on. Khalezov has gone further. He figured that the bombs which simulated the aftermath of plane crashes into the twin towers had to have been placed in between the outer steel frame columns and the aluminum cladding that covered these columns. As a result, when these bombs would go off, they’d tend to push the steel columns inward and push the aluminum cladding outward. Bingo! Khalezov found incriminating pictures: example 1, example 2 [notice the aluminum cladding forcibly ejected at the alleged moment of the plane impact]. Khalezov also showed that even if a plane were made out of a material that would slice through steel, the slice pattern wouldn’t be the one observed. Read the details in 9/11thology.

Revisited: Elias Davidsson on 19 Arabs and four hijacked planes

Elias Davidsson has come up with numerous drafts of the argument that there’s no credible evidence of the involvement of 19 Arabs in the hijackings of four planes on 9/11.

Davidsson argues that there’s no credible evidence of 19 Arabs hijacking planes on 9/11 because:

  • there’s no footage of the passengers of the planes before they boarded the aircraft;
  • there are no authenticated flight manifests;
  • there are no authenticated ticket stubs taken from the passengers of the allegedly hijacked planes [these are collected at the boarding gate];
  • there’s no credible testimony of airport staff recalling seeing any of the 19 Arabs at the airports from which the allegedly hijacked planes took off;
  • there’s no proof that the alleged hijackers died on 9/11 or no credible positive identification of the remains of the alleged hijackers.

Davidsson’s research dovetails with the “no official planes” theory.

Also see indications for no plane hijackings on 9/11: http://www.consensus911.org/point-flt-1/

Nuclear demolition of WTC towers

The other major idea that has been increasingly endorsed is that the WTC complex was destroyed by nuclear bombs. The following major sets of observations point to nuclear demolition of the WTC complex.

The destruction of the WTC complex left lower Manhattan covered in dust. This dust was mostly fine particles of steel; other pulverized items included aluminum coating, furniture, computers, miscellaneous office items, and concrete; Buildings 1, 2, and 7 were mostly turned into fine dust. More than a thousand humans inside Buildings 1 and 2 disappeared without a trace, i.e., they were turned into fine dust.

Fires, corresponding to very high temperatures below the WTC complex, burned for 100 days in what was the longest burning structural fire in history. Thousands of gallons of pyrocool FEF, a blend of a) surfactants that prevent water from forming beads and b) ultra-violet absorbers, had to be used in conjunction with millions of gallons of water to help put out the fires.

After the WTC rubble was cleared, huge potholes or cavities with melted rock emerged where the fallen buildings had once stood. These pictures weren’t supposed to get out, but now that they were out, a spin had to be put on the evidence, and it was claimed that an Ice Age glacier had carved the “plummeting holes, steep cliffsides and soft billows of steel-gray bedrock.”

Tens of thousands of people in the vicinity of the WTC complex on 9/11, including first responders, eventually got cancers.

[See 9/11thology by Dimitri Khalezov for details].

At this time there’s little consensus regarding how nuclear demolition was achieved. There seem to be four major arguments:

  • A secret nuclear power station below the WTC complex exploded; see William Tahil . However, the only scenario in which a nuclear explosion occurs inside a nuclear power plant is one in which a nuclear bomb goes off.
  • Multiple mini-nuclear bombs were used. This argument seems to be the most popular given that Jim Fetzer and associates have gravitated toward it. See note on mini-neutron bombs, evidence that the WTC complex was nuked on 9/11, and a response to Steven Jones on the mini-nuke hypothesis. Critics point to unacceptable collateral damage in this scenario and more obviously incriminating evidence that the perpetrators would want to avoid.
  • A small number of underground third-generation nuclear bombs with a maximum yield in the neighborhood of 150 kilotons of TNT were used. This argument has been developed by Khalezov and is the one I find the most plausible.
  • A small number of underground fourth-generation nuclear bombs were used. This argument has been developed by someone describing himself as a Finnish military expert [http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm]. I don’t know anything about fourth-generation nuclear bombs and can’t comment on this argument. These and more advanced bombs supposedly achieve a nuclear fusion explosion without a nuclear fission explosion or destroy by combining matter with anti-matter... sounds science fiction to me.

Tying together a series of observations on or around 9/11

Khalezov included a screen capture of this news report that was published in Jane’s a day before 9/11. The report talks about Soviet anti-ship P-700 Granit missiles equipped with 500 or 550 kilotons of TNT equivalent nuclear warheads. Was it mere coincidence that this report appeared a day before 9/11 in a major military/defense equipment publication? Apparently no as according to Khalezov this was the missile that struck the Pentagon on 9/11, not a Boeing 757. Someone wanted America’s leaders to make no mistakes about what would hit the Pentagon or the White House the day after.

The first nuclear bomb used by the U.S. against Japan had a yield in the neighborhood of 15 kilotons of TNT; the Granit missile, at 500 or 550 kilotons of TNT equivalent, would’ve flattened Washington, D.C., had it detonated. Again, the perpetrators wanted American leaders scared. The detonator had been disabled. Those who know the basics of nuclear bombs know that accidents—such as shock—can’t detonate nuclear weapons, and there’s no risk of spilling nuclear fuel either as a result of impact when a thick steel container containing nuclear fuel ploughs into softer materials (Pentagon building materials).

According to Khalezov, the Granit missile—which had been stolen from a Russian submarine that had accidentally sunk, The Kursk—was one of several items that point to a plan. The other observations are a) fake seismic readings, fake thermal maps, and faked mangling of metals to fool people into believing surface detonation of mini-nuclear bombs in the twin towers; and b) the anthrax mailings that followed shortly after 9/11. The plan was to implicate Iraq in 9/11. The argument would be that Saddam Hussein had managed to steal/obtain weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, there was a major effort underway to blame Iraq for 9/11, an effort that played a major role in justifying the invasion of Iraq:

An investigation by a committee in the House of Representatives in 2004 identified “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.”

According to the committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” A Senate investigation in 2006 also covered these lies. [source: John Glaser]

[Also read Washington’s Blog [on Donald Rumsfeld, etc.] and Linda Feldmann on Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq.]

However, the Iraq argument regarding the nukes would’ve been a stretch, and wasn’t made in public, but Khalezov added that it was made in private to some of America’s leaders. The public was given a story about 19 Arabs, 15 of whom were said to be Saudis who belonged to Al Qaeda, a group led by a Saudi, Osama bin Laden, and financed by numerous Saudis. Unsurprisingly, the Saudis weren’t attacked. Afghanistan was attacked reportedly because it was harboring bin Laden; the actual reason was to prevent the Taliban from wiping out poppy cultivation that stood to deprive Jewish drug traders of tens of billions of dollars worth of heroin per annum. Lies about WMDs and Iraq’s involvement in 9/11 were used to invade and destroy Iraq.

Khalezov discussed what on 9/11 was told to some powerful American leaders about 9/11 and Iraq. They were told about the stolen Granit missile that had struck the Pentagon; “fortunately” it hadn’t exploded. They were also told that the hijacked planes that had crashed into the twin towers had mini-nuclear weapons on board... I’m not sure about this allegation; discuss the matter with Khalezov if you wish. Therefore, pressure was on American authorities to destroy the twin towers using a built-in demolition scheme to reduce the damage that could be caused by surface detonation of the nuclear bombs that were allegedly on the planes. When the towers were constructed, there had to have been a plan to demolish them in an efficient manner should the need arise, and the theory of legitimate nuclear demolitions of skyscrapers [discussed by Khalezov] suggests that nuclear demolition could’ve been an option; Khalezov says that this was the option chosen; Mike Sparks and others also argue that the twin towers were built to self-destruct but not via underground nuclear bombs. So, according to Khalezov, key U.S. government officials apparently gave the order to demolish the twin towers to contain or minimize damage. The nuclear demolition was botched to some extent because there were lots of cavities around the foundations of the WTC towers dug in to accommodate parking, the path train, and storage; and additional complications were introduced by the damage caused by bombs that had simulated the damage allegedly caused by plane crashes into the twin towers.

Thermitic materials in WTC dust

How does one fit in thermitic material in WTC dust as reported by Steven Jones and others? The thermitic substance reveals itself by melting iron even when WTC dust is heated to a temperature much below the melting point of iron. It’s clear that this thermitic substance couldn’t have acted as an explosive, let alone turned a large quantity of steel to dust. Khalezov hasn’t properly addressed this issue. To me it seems that thermite would be necessary for the top of the twin towers. Detonation of a 150-kiloton-TNT-yield underground nuclear bomb intended for legitimate nuclear demolition of skyscrapers would leave the top floors of skyscrapers as tall as the twin towers intact, and this top section would sustain minor damage relative to the bottom of the building after hitting ground. If one ignited thermite at key top-floor locations, perhaps with some bombs for visual effects or obfuscation, the thermite would act as cutter charges and ensure, with correct timing, that the steel columns in the topmost parts of the buildings were cut into lengths just about right for trucks to carry them away for quick destruction of crime scene evidence. Thermitic substances may also have been used along with explosives to simulate the damage caused by plane crashes. Another use for a thermitic substance could be to obfuscate, or keep people preoccupied with issues that don’t go into the heart of the chief cause of the destruction of the WTC complex: nuclear demolition.

Much more to come for sure

If you imagine the argument outlined here as a piece of sculpture, it has a lot of rough edges, but it’s getting there. The sculpture’s taking a long time to finish partly because the 9/11 truth movement has largely been a creation of controlled opposition, but as Jim Fetzer has recently pointed out, controlled opposition is increasingly revealing itself; see Fetzer on Richard Gage and the limited hangout operations run by Kevin Ryan, AE911, and the Journal of 9/11 Studies. John de Nugent has made a similar point using the example of David Duke who’s obviously protecting the perpetrators of 9/11. In contrast, big names in the truth movement are increasingly pointing to the obvious 9/11 perpetrators: example 1, example 2.

Posted by R-news on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 01:24 PM
Comments (2) | Tell a friend

Comments:

No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Trashed comments

General News

The people who orchestrated 9/11 were discussed on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of 9/11. At that time I hadn’t given much thought to the question of mechanism or means, and endorsed ideas that I now know to be incorrect. Now that we have the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11 before us, it’s time to consider an overview of the how behind 9/11, especially in light of some very interesting developments in recent years. This overview won’t answer all questions, but the reader who looks at the references at length will undoubtedly get the impression that we’re getting there.

Some readers may recall that when 9/11 skepticism was catching on, say around the mid-2000s, some odd personalities seemed to discredit the skeptics by engaging in apparent instances of strawman sockpuppeting. A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag identity adopted by controlled opposition to make genuine opposition look ludicrous. An apparent attempt to discredit skeptics was the argument that no planes hit the twin towers.

In recent years, however, there’s been a noticeable increase in the proportion of skeptics who’ve endorsed the argument that no planes hit the twin towers on 9/11. 9/11 skeptics have organized major international conferences; recent ones were held in Toronto (2012) and Vancouver (2014). The Vancouver 2014 conference differed from earlier conferences in that it focused on no-holds-barred ideas that were catching on and the probable perpetrators, whereas the earlier ones had focused on broad consensus issues.

Many big 9/11-truth-movement names stayed away from the Vancouver conference because they didn’t want to lend any credence to some of the “wild arguments” that this conference was going to discuss, such as the “no official planes” theory that many big figures in the skeptical community, such as Jim Fetzer, have endorsed. So what has caused this major shift in attitudes?

Science News

Two critical questions that remain unanswered:

1) How does one come to identify with a group?

2) What are the environmental triggers of oxytocin?

Science 11 June 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5984, pp. 1408 - 1411
DOI: 10.1126/science.1189047
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
REPORTS
The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans
Carsten K. W. De Dreu,1,* Lindred L. Greer,1 Michel J. J. Handgraaf,1 Shaul Shalvi,1 Gerben A. Van Kleef,1 Matthijs Baas,1 Femke S. Ten Velden,1 Eric Van Dijk,2 Sander W. W. Feith3
Humans regulate intergroup conflict through parochial altruism; they self-sacrifice to contribute to in-group welfare and to aggress against competing out-groups. Parochial altruism has distinct survival functions, and the brain may have evolved to sustain and promote in-group cohesion and effectiveness and to ward off threatening out-groups. Here, we have linked oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, to the regulation of intergroup conflict. In three experiments using double-blind placebo-controlled designs, male participants self-administered oxytocin or placebo and made decisions with financial consequences to themselves, their in-group, and a competing out-group. Results showed that oxytocin drives a “tend and defend” response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out-groups.
1 Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, Netherlands.
2 Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Postbox 9555, 2300 RB, Netherlands.
3 Stichting AllesKits, Cypruslaan 410, 3059 XA Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Milgram replicated: perfectly ordinary people can all-too-easily become torturers

Same genes may govern intelligence and sperm quality

Remains of Copernicus' identified

Neural pathways spectacularly imaged by MRI

Women walk swinging their hips all month to disguise ovulation and promote monogamy. So is hip-swinging more of a European thing?

Prehistoric cave paintings took up to 20,000 years to complete

Tidy conservatives, messy liberals?

First dig for 44 years dates Stonehenge at 2300 BC

The face of Neanderthal woman revealed

Brains and the taxi driver - or, maybe, why so many Jews used to drive London's black cabs

Why we are evolved to be superstitious

Study suggests AIDS-resistant gene less common where Romans ruled

Women and property are the cause of male aggression

Facial roundness in the male correlates with aggression.

Whadd'ya know, I'm not a Neaderthal after all

The Pill may change women's choice in men

The Neanderthal murder mystery

Male lust really is blind

German villagers share DNA with cavemen

US researcher discovers link between voting booth location and voting preference

Sexual orientation nature, not nurture

Cannabis may shrink brain

Gene evidence supports "Out of Africa" 200,000 years ago

Conservatives Happier Than Liberals

Women's voices more attractive during ovulation

Human line split in Africa long before migrations north

Japanese researchers find evidence that the need to belong is "biologically coded"

Analytical technique shows how metabolism varies between populations

James Watson's genome sequenced , and “It was so profound, how little we were actually able to say"

Nationally representative American study finds no difference in testosterone levels between black and white men. The latest on racial differences in testosterone.

Racial differences in eye anatomy

Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations

Penis review: smaller in Asians but no clear differences among other races

Self-pleasing behavior in Britain vs. China

National IQs predict differences in scholastic achievement in 67 countries.

650,000 genetic markers and inferred population structure.

Inferred population structure from 525,910 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) plus 396 copy-number-variable loci.

Ethnocentrism increases during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Important research on the nature of prejudice.

Swedish men more masculine than Greenland Inuit.

“Ethnic identity” predicts experimental pain sensitivity. Make that racial differences.

Childhood IQ predicts changes in IQ in later life.

A Dutch IQ study and the latest on the relation between the Flynn effect and g (general intelligence factor).

Development trends in the intellectual similarity of virtual twin pairs: additional proof that the shared family environment has increasingly less impact with time throughout childhood.

Among prepubertal children, boys with average inteliigence have higher testosterone than mentally challenged and intellectually gifted boys; no relation in girls.

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

New Right

Science

Whites in Africa