Disinfo-Misinfo, Cointelpro, Mkultra, Bollyn, Ruppert and ST9-11

C

Christophera

Guest
Greetings,

I joined here some time ago but have not posted as I have been assembling some pages on research of 9-11 disinformation to present. My efforts to expose the BIG (1368 foot) FEMA lie regarding the concrete core of the towers has been an excellent gauge of the sincerity of truth seekers and very educational. I'm hoping to find some reasonable people who can use raw evidence and logic regarding towers and the human mind to escape the stigma that the disinfomation campaign of 9-11 has targeted and form some unity that is effective.

I found some very good thinking here regarding 9-11 disinformation and so wanted to bring a larger perspective if possible. My pages on disinformation can start here.

http://algoxy(dot)com/psych/whatis9-11disinformation.html

The demolition site is here,

http://algoxy(dot)com/psych/9-11scenario.html

The page documenting the concrete core is here,

http://algoxy(dot)com/conc/core.html


They are all linked now anyway but I've provided these links to make it easier for members here to access them.


I will say that a few nights ago I watched "V for Vendetta" for the first time and find the spirit therein appropriate for this forum and congratulate whoever used the theme here. Inspirational film art to be sure, a hgher use of art altogether.


I found the discourse on Bollyns possible role in 9-11 discussed here intriguing. Many very good observations and perspectives generally into the behaviors and our dilemma of creating an environment of truth amongst ourselves on this issue of 9-11. For the record I define truth as the meaning of something to each of us rather than strictly facts which define events. This allows us all to have our own truth. The Bollyn issue seemed a good place to start with piecing together an inclusive, logical perspective of an over all campaign regarding long term factors regarding a event not well known in its origins at all, 9-11.

From a perspective which a renegade behavioral anthropologist of 1970 might have, if such were allowed to exist in that area of academia ever, I would try to share an understanding of; shamanic origin in the keeping of oral histories with deep trance states and sun worship as a real and dominant part of history. A history verifiable by psychology and research into the unconscious potential of the human mind. This knowledge has always been dissociated through distortions by labeling, exploitation of fear of a highly manipulated society for centuries, the word "occult" etc. ad nauseam from the inquisitions and further.

Now, ........ from the perspective of that impossible anthropologist, abandoned 35 years ago, I'll strive to show what could have been seen then IF our government and society was not controlled by unreasonable fear which stopped academia cold. There was a moment when anthropology/psychology turned from the proper actions of investigation and understanding of the ancient shamanic knowledge and associated implications from its logically vital position in academia, and instead went in directions of a removed study or comment on/on behaviorology that matched by avoidance the "PRODUCT" of the rewriting of history or removal of the truth of the quasi official and un official, societies of the old world.

There was not a lot of information even then, but enough, I remember the last of it leaving in the 1950's. This link speaks of when and how it went.

http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html

It is about a large conspiracy to rewrite history and permeate the educational system with the revision which has its own role but not a topic here. Just a fact and this topic endeavors to be about the ORIGINAL history rather than the rewrite, or how its revision has effected our ability to detect the true forces at work or the scale they are on, in time.
There is a reason the factual past of human history was effectively removed. First the history that was re written was not wanted. Many families had shame and fear dominating for centuries their thoughts of the true past in anyway, when it ever occurred to them. All of that has been used in a massive, slow move to get the western world to relinquish almost completely, the last thread of something which was not well understood to begin with.

Discarded knowledge, recovered and abused, I feel certain, by dark forces in a well known high level CIA program called mkultra.

Did we ever wonder WHY mkultra was enacted? We heard about a number of bizarre events and apparently thousands of Americans were influenced in some way psychologically with perhaps no awareness it was happening. We didn't hear a whole lot more.

What if the entire scene is as Laura says in 13) below?

(From 13)
Laura wrote:
"Did you think that, with the power of the internet to reach millions of people that the "powers that be" would have ignored the necessity of installing a "Greek Chorus" on the net or in the 911 Truth Movement?"

As Laura suggests a perspective, I modify and suggest mkultra was how the "Chorus" was scripted.

I realize as rs says in 1), I'm going way further than Bollyn went if marginalization is the criteria, because the inferences I draw, and potential I contend do exist are more outlandish than any Bollyn has ever presented. However, 3,000 are dead and private investigations were blocked from evidence which was removed illegally after the air force went on exercise and the WTC plans are hidden in the ex NYC mayors warehouse after two very strong towers went down identically at near free fall; so maybe there is a reason to consider what I have to say even though the current conditions in the 9-11 expose world are tumultuous as least.

Since this is an action of understanding before it is anything else, I seriously feel that the most evolved perspective on all of this exposure of these secret acts (unconscious is better than secret), is that all of the actors are victims of the publics fear and ignorance. We, and our ancestors, are the ones that ignored the potentials rather than engaging our own campaign of light in opposition of the dark forces. It was us that embraced the fear (disabling the anthropologist) rather than the knowledge and so made an environment where these people have been used. I advocate compassion towards them because of what they were perhaps subjected to unconsciously as children.

Let me outline a pattern which can be seen in it's "staged appearance". All the quotes below show prominence that could simply be enabled in its visual capacity on the internet by false promotion of the actors that have the controversial/intrigue behaviors we see which are designed to be distracting from the useful issues of 9-11, or further mislead and prevent the development of any position and action from the public position. My contention is that these things can be created by collusion unconsciously directed but yet will be well coordinated conditionally by key people who are triggered to act in sequence reciprocally.

That pattern could extend fully to the creation of a large number of the influential actors of the 9-11 truth movement. I would propose that a logical criteria for 9-11 activists is, "It is not what is said, it is what is done" on that path to coming up with actual explanations for what happened on 9-11, or conversely, by omission, "what is not done" which also happens to prevent an explanation.


Thnak you sincerely for your comments,

Christopher A. Brown









1) rs
One way to discredit the 911 truth movement is to make outlandish claims "in support of the truth (i.e. that there was a conspiracy)" which get proven to be either highly exaggerated or false. This goes to support that whole "its just those conspiracy nuts" idea.


2)dhess31
I see it as a veiled (or maybe not-so-veiled) warning to other people (like us) who know about Israel's involvement in 9/11. You know, the whole "We are watching and coming for you unless you shut-up" deal.


3)Laura
He uses the terms "safe houses" and talks about "staying on the move" as though he was the one and only person who is investigating 911 and as though HIS info is so deadly that he has to live that way. A bit dramatic, don't you think? Has he really produced anything more or better than any other researcher?


4)Laura
It's interesting to consider in light of what Bollyn was later writing regarind Israel where he spent "several summers" working as a lifeguard at a kibbutz. Question is: was he sent in to infiltrate AFP???


5)Laura
Question is why is he creating this drama?


6)Laura
All just speculations, but I still find it difficult to imagine a probable high-maintenance looker like Helje married to an alternative news writer/911 investigator like Bollyn who evidences some serious psychological issues here.


7)apeguia
Maybe he's working (consciously or not) for a faction within the US that wants Israel exposed? You know, just as we suspect there's a faction working for Israel that blames 9/11 on the US and talks about NO plane on Pentagon, but never mentions Israel, as a sort of blackmailing the US government.


8)hkoehli
Daryl Smith/Eric Hufschmid inaccurately state that it is the police report on their website.


9)heiho1
The article goes on but the impetus is clear in that Michael Ruppert is claiming that government agents orchestrated violence and theft against him and that his only possible solution was to leave the country...or die.


10)anart
I think the second sentence has been true since he was accused of sexually harrassing his employee, then fired her,


11)nktulloch
When I read the piece I thought, gee, info about psychopathy, the zionist angle with 911 and cases of COINTELPRO was being discussed all over the web. If people are starting to seriously wonder about the zionist connection would the PTB not try to muddy the waters so no one would figure things out. I wonder if by implicating ADL and by extension Isreal in this attack would we later learn that it was fake so that they can later on discredit anyone that brings in the zionist angle. It would be something COINTELPRO would do and is what I felt while reading his story but I also just recently finished reading the ostrovsky book so in my mind 'by way of deception' was written all over his claims.


12)Lucy:
Laura wrote:
It also seems to me that these people are "faking attacks" on themselves to legitimize their nonsense.

Dave McGowan in his latest newsletter, says
how is it that a seasoned police detective could do such an amateurish job of staging a crime scene?

The link he provides of Rupert's buglarized office shows various inconsistencies IMO.

I like the title of Dave's latest newsletter:
"Oh Mikey, You Gotta Lotta Splainin' to Do!"


13)Laura:
The problem is, if there is a psychopath - or those with related characteropathies - who doesn't know hot to keep good eye contact when lying, they haven't been born. Eye contact is "universally known" to be a sign of truth-telling. The problem is liars will fake anything that it is possible to fake, so in reality, eye contact is absolutely NOT a sign of truth telling.

This is an issue that will never die. It seems impossible to convince people that private behavior cannot be predicted from public behavior. Kind, nonviolent individuals behave well in public, but so do predators, rapists, murderers, pedophiles and COINTELPRO agents who help to shape the culture in which we live. No, they weren't always called COINTELPRO, but the principle is the same. It has been used since time immemorial. The earliest written records we have are of "clappers" in the audiences of theaters in ancient Greece. What do you think the term "Greek Chorus" means? We have exactly that in the present day in the form of the mainstream media. Did you think that, with the power of the internet to reach millions of people that the "powers that be" would have ignored the necessity of installing a "Greek Chorus" on the net or in the 911 Truth Movement?

14)Laura:
What motive does anyone have in this world to stage anything, including 911?

What motive would Bollyn have for misrepresenting the whole thing?
 
Chris said:
I'm going way further than Bollyn went if marginalization is the criteria, because the inferences I draw, and potential I contend do exist are more outlandish than any Bollyn has ever presented.
Well, I spent about 30 minutes going over the pages linked and the ideas are actually more sensible than trying to figure out when, and how thermate could have been used.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is really far out to propose that the building was built with the C4 installed from the very beginning; i.e. that it was planned at the time it was built?

I don't think that is very crazy at all. But maybe I'm not understanding you since you do have a bit of an unclear writing style. In any event, if that IS what you are thinking is a really far-out idea, I don't think it is. One even wonders how many other buildings might have been built with self-destruct capabilities built in?
 
Chris said:
I'm going way further than Bollyn went if marginalization is the criteria, because the inferences I draw, and potential I contend do exist are more outlandish than any Bollyn has ever presented.
Laura said:
Well, I spent about 30 minutes going over the pages linked and the ideas are actually more sensible than trying to figure out when, and how thermate could have been used.
Yes, thermite over the first floor and basement levels just are not substantiated. The few images that show what might be molten steel at high elevations could be from C4 in the floors burning. From research I've done C4 burns at around 3,000 F.

Laura said:
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is really far out to propose that the building was built with the C4 installed from the very beginning; i.e. that it was planned at the time it was built?
Yes. The 1990 documentary mentioned that the revised plans for the core were not available to the contractor until 2 days before construction on the core was set to start. Also contractors in the beginning were not allowed to take the plans hone at night. They threatened lawsuits. The videographers considered all of this unusual even for a high profile public building.
Part of what I'm trying to do is make this an issue in the 9-11truth world so that the public can be tapped for their memory of the documentary. Those who saw it are not in the 9-11 truth movement so do not know about hte FEMA lie.
From my research, operation Paperclip begat mkultra and the Twin Towers as the US branch of a manipulation that ended up creating the cold war.

Laura said:
I don't think that is very crazy at all. But maybe I'm not understanding you since you do have a bit of an unclear writing style. In any event, if that IS what you are thinking is a really far-out idea, I don't think it is. One even wonders how many other buildings might have been built with self-destruct capabilities built in?
I suffer from PTSD incurred from legal abuse as I tried to gain lawful performance in 1998 from Santa Barbara County regarding over 1,000 missing court case files, insanity actions. It exhibits as ADHD. Our understanding of the human mind is seriously deprived, we are deeply endangered because of it. The secrecy of 9-11 is empowered by the deprivation. This is one reason I appreciate the focus on behavior and psychology here as we stand a chance of compensating.
 
This is just an idea for your site, it would be helpful to those who may recollect the documentary with you, if you could perhaps provide more information in a section about the specifics you recall of the video, the title, city of the broadcast station, date of airing, any of the names interviewed, date of production or who produced it. I imagine you must already know about the 1983 documentary, "Building the World Trade Center", produced by the NYC port authority, which I am assuming could not be your reference video. Maybe a section on your page describing what you do know about the video, the names of particular videos you have ruled out, and to date which stations you have contacted about the airing in 1990 and their responses, would help other to help you track it down.
 
does anyone else think it is a bit odd that six months ago or so:

- there were HUGE efforts all over the web (and by agents on the forum here) to try to generally steer the 9/11 investigation AWAY from the Pentagon strike and back towards the WTC event
- the attempt failed, and at the time the general concensus here was that the WTC event was plausibly deniable by the PTB (ie even if it was discovered to be demolished or whatever, the line would be: "oh, muslims did it anway"
- that the Pentagon strike was in fact the real achillies heel for the PTB, because: they had given an official line on what happened, which if proven incorrect would prove the authorities had lied
- and this was cited as the probable reason for the perceived deliberate vectoring of the discussion

and now here we are, many months later, and ALL the discussions have somehow moved away from the Pentagon, and are focussing on the WTC???
 
Your vectoring of this discussion remains the only thing that is clearly deliberate. Which by your logic renders you suspicious even unto yourself.

I do not see how exposing one lie is comparatively less than or greater than others. As far as I am concerned we, PTB, or anyone who imposes a priority on us amounts to nothing less than controlling-a-discussion, thus exposing yet another agenda. While truth has only one - itself.
 
harpoonflyby said:
This is just an idea for your site, it would be helpful to those who may recollect the documentary with you, if you could perhaps provide more information in a section about the specifics you recall of the video, the title, city of the broadcast station, date of airing, any of the names interviewed, date of production or who produced it. I imagine you must already know about the 1983 documentary, "Building the World Trade Center", produced by the NYC port authority, which I am assuming could not be your reference video. Maybe a section on your page describing what you do know about the video, the names of particular videos you have ruled out, and to date which stations you have contacted about the airing in 1990 and their responses, would help other to help you track it down.
Thank you,

That is a very good idea, something I had overlooked altogether. Consider it done. However a few who doubted the documentaries existence actually communicated with PBS, the producer to find that they do not have it and know nothing of it. Which did not surprise me at all. Meaning that tracking it down is a different matter.

On 9-11 while watching WTC 1 fall I knew that the documentary had been removed from their archives and records. I also knew I was looking at the worlds most sophisticated demolition ever and figured that if such towers could be brought down as I saw, that getting rid of a documentary and record of it would be easy.

However, I've spoken to people who also saw other documentaries on the towers that contained some of the same film clips of the concrete core. There were perhaps 3 others from what I could determine. Those people remembered very well the concrete core and were quite surprised to find that FEMA had presented the core as being comprised of multiple steel columns. I feel many others who are not 9-11 truth seekers know about the concrete core but because the truth movement cannot bring tiself to make this an issue, those who know of the concrete core also do not know of the descrepency. This goes for those people that made VHS copies of the documentary as well.

Yes, I've seen that 18 minute documentary "Building the World Trade Center" and realized that the documentary I saw in1990 actually mentioned the 1983 version and described it as "celebratory". In watching it my memory was jogged by seeing the floor panels being hoisted into position during one particualr clip which was also used in the 1990 DOC.

What I remembered was about the tempered steel plates that filled the gaps left in the truncated floor corners where they joined with the interior box columns. I remembered the videographer stating that they endeavored to provide as complete an accounting of the construction of the towers as possible and that they never did find any film or images of the last of the construction process before the concrete was poured on the floors. They did however, on a final examination of the thousands of documents they were provided with, find some details of triangular tempered steel plates that had very high precision cut outs in them to fit around the interior box columns. The narration also said that the PA was upset that the videographers had sourced the drawing documents and had considered them confidential at the time and still did. When the videographers asked why, the PA dropped the issue. There was actually a number of very important clues in the documentary.

I immediately realized that what I remembered explained the amazingly smooth cuts on the very thick interior box columns and set to making a revision to my web page on the demolition incorporating a crude sketch showing basically what was described in the documentary.

Here is a link to that section of the web page.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383
 
harpoonflyby said:
I do not see how exposing one lie is comparatively less than or greater than others. As far as I am concerned we, PTB, or anyone who imposes a priority on us amounts to nothing less than controlling-a-discussion, thus exposing yet another agenda. While truth has only one - itself.
I may be wrong but from my understanding, focusing on the pentagon is not to try and lessen WTC importance or increase the pentagon importance. Let me try and explain with an example that came to me. Let's say you are all chained up and secured to the ground in a sealed room. There is water filling the room and your only escape is through an opening in the roof, that's to say you can free yourself first. SO let's say you notice several weak points in the chain. One of the points is so weak that you can see a slit opening in the links. Now what would logic dictate? For you to further examine the chain and all the weak points, thinking about possibilities that can be, or are you going to go all out and try and focus your efforts on the point that will break open the whole chain of suppression before the inevitable.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't many weak points in the WTC, but it seems to me and many more here, that perhaps the weakest link is the pentagon and once the chain is broken the rest will follow suit.

neema
 
neema said:
Now I'm not saying that there aren't many weak points in the WTC, but it seems to me and many more here, that perhaps the weakest link is the pentagon and once the chain is broken the rest will follow suit.

neema
Hello neema,

I do see your point about the weak link.

I know a lot about the WTC towers that others do not, so that makes me bias here.

I did study and argue the five thing event up until about 2003. I know it quite well. I got super tired of the opposition bringing up handfulls of military people who were in the witness capacity. It seemed to completely nullify the physical evidence even tho there are other witness accounts that matched the evidence.

My point is that the five thing event looks set up with these witnesses. The intelligence community uses mind control. Yes, that stuff is real, I know a great deal about it. When we discuss the fiver, we become a target for its usage via the witnesses of the fiver and those who do not want to believe these conspiracies are totally willing to believe military people but not in mind control so we can't even object.

The WTC witnesses are very consistent with each other and the evidence. The FEMA lie about the core is a smoking gun without parallel when near free fall and total pulverization is an issue. But the word isn't getting out. It is VERY strange that the 9-11 truth movement has a problem with concrete, the worlds most common building material in the core and this cannot be made an issue that gets public. Everybody, I mean everybody knows about pulverization because the remains of 90% of the victims were ground up so small they couldn't be found and were buried in a land fill. That got the attention of everybody and so did the rate of fall. The design of the towers naturally would have everything to do with the rate of fall. Concrete can be easily fractured to fall instantly whereas steel cannot.
 
harpoonflyby said:
Your vectoring of this discussion remains the only thing that is clearly deliberate. Which by your logic renders you suspicious even unto yourself.
yes, it was a deliberate post, deliberation is necessary here! Being 'deliberate' doesn't necessarily imply 'suspicious'.

the aim was to raise the awareness of the possibility that we are being set-up ie by some kind of 'straw-man' argument which can then be knocked down (eg. perhaps the 'controlled demolition' issue is going to be 'used' in some way by the ptb?) - this would have two effects:
- discredit associated discussions/people/'conspiracy-theories'
- distract energy and effort away from a more important issue
it is standard cointelpro mode of operation.

I'm NOT saying "don't discuss it". I am saying "keep aware" in case of above. To deny that possibility is to become extremely vulnerable to cointelpro manouvres.

harpoonflyby said:
I do not see how exposing one lie is comparatively less than or greater than others. As far as I am concerned we, PTB, or anyone who imposes a priority on us amounts to nothing less than controlling-a-discussion, thus exposing yet another agenda. While truth has only one - itself.
but then you ignored the part of my post, which explained exactly that - ie the proof that the authorities lied vs the plausibly deniable scenario.
 
I see the motivation for keeping a concerted effort toward exposing PS. However I do not sense the urgency that exposing truth now or in 15 seconds, 15 days, or 15 months from now will save lives. There is no emergency brake so to speak. The PS although potentially a more powerful smoking gun, does not offer any unequivocable evidence, it is at best very tempting suppositions. Using disparate shots of video, it is possible to triangulate a conclusion from WTC7 relationship to WTC1 and 2, using length of time and physical facts. A case can be made by regular people in the public, almost entirely using forensic science and math. The performance of building demolition, properties of materials, laws of physics, performance of fires in concrete/steel buildings, and time, these are incontrovertible and fully accessible to everyone. Its case does not require a single eyewitness account to prove, that is if you accept as a goal there are simply unanswered questions that need to be investigated independently.

Revealing PS may show the "hole runs deep", agreed, but I don't think any of the 9/11 truth camps are in a position to objectively place blame. At best we can speculate, to a high degree certainly, but it is still speculation built upon accounts of witnesses whose motivations are not verifiable, and who are not even under oath or in a controlled environment for interrogation.

Placing blame is actually detrimental at this stage, because the environment for the argument is pure chaos, we fight against the sheer volume and reach of MSM. Until a 9/11 truth argument takes place at a federal court hearing, it does not take place in a controlled and ordered environment. The best way to grab enough attention to warrant a hearing is to show the holes in the official story. Going after the anomaly _and_ blame in one shot, as your public message, conveys revolution. This is kind of a hard proposition for most folks to swallow just off the street. Attempting to prove PS is doing this because it bites off more than we can chew. Also, the blame factor is based yet again entirely on _observable_ effect, e.g. wars and agression in the middle east, war against civil liberties, and what have you, i.e. the government "done it". Apparent cause and effect we already have to accept is superficial, especially for us, it is the very pyschology used to support "war on terrorism". The apparent cause and apparent effect are not available to us as tools, we cannot use them. It is why so many are completely ignorant about the topic in the first place, because we as selfish beings tend to make up our minds by vague appearances, not research or proof.

I am neither for nor against either case, until we are talking about a tangible presentation, and I do not see harm in simple discussion about available facts or lack of.
 
I think Vinny has a very good point actually, and

harpoonflyby said:
I see the motivation for keeping a concerted effort toward exposing PS. However I do not sense the urgency that exposing truth now or in 15 seconds, 15 days, or 15 months from now will save lives. There is no emergency brake so to speak.
Apologies, but you lost me here - how does focusing on the WTC demolitions to the exclusion of the Pentagon strike save lives? ( perhaps I missed something earlier)

harpoonflyby said:
The PS although potentially a more powerful smoking gun, does not offer any unequivocable evidence, it is at best very tempting suppositions.
What unequivocable evidence do you have for the WTC? Actually, considering that the demolitions of the WTC can be explained away by the PTB in any number of ways (be it 'al queda' planted the explosives, or some other 'they did it' scenario), it seems that the Pentagon strike offers a much more solid opportunity to expose the depth of government involvement. There is no easy explanation for that one - period.

harpoonflyby said:
Using disparate shots of video, it is possible to triangulate a conclusion from WTC7 relationship to WTC1 and 2, using length of time and physical facts. A case can be made by regular people in the public, almost entirely using forensic science and math. The performance of building demolition, properties of materials, laws of physics, performance of fires in concrete/steel buildings, and time, these are incontrovertible and fully accessible to everyone.
Which has already been done (and continues to be worked on) by a few people - and dismissed by the PTB and all those they control - and, most critically...

harpoonflyby said:
Until a 9/11 truth argument takes place at a federal court hearing, it does not take place in a controlled and ordered environment.
It is highly unlikely any 'federal court' in this country will ever touch this issue - chances are it's not going to happen, and if you honestly think it is going to happen, you haven't been paying attention to the wholesale dismantling of any sort of independent judicial power in this country. Even if, at some point in the magical mystical future, these issues were to be brought up in a federal court, there is no way that the real truth of the matter would be exposed - that is simply not how things work here on the BBM - so the vectoring of the discussion to focus on 'we should only bring up what we can prove absolutely' seems faulty - it seems that we should actually bring up, and focus on, that which they cannot find a way to easily explain away - that for which there is no explanation - the hole in the Pentagon and the missing 747.

harpoonflyby said:
I am neither for nor against either case, until we are talking about a tangible presentation, and I do not see harm in simple discussion about available facts or lack of.
It actually seems more like you are indeed against the focus on the Pentagon - which, as we've seen all along, usually occurs for one reason - to vector away from that which is really the most damaging. I'm not saying that there should be no discussion about the WTC, of course, just that the Pentagon strike certainly seems to be the real achilles' heal, and as such, it shouldn't be relegated to second stage.
 
harpoonflyby said:
Going after the anomaly _and_ blame in one shot, as your public message, conveys revolution. This is kind of a hard proposition for most folks to swallow just off the street.
This is a vastly important point.

Which is why the concrete core issue is such a good issue. The weak aspect of it are that for a person to be certain of the proof provided here, they must have a degree of experience with steel materials and concrete in constrcution as well as demolition.

As far as I can tell the truth movement is primarily comprised of computer nerds. Indeed, the construction industry and demolition industry is comprised of persons who are not only disinclined to sit at computers on the web and study information about terrorism, they are inclined to simply accept whatever the news tells them and go to work in the morning. They are not revoltionaries, the reverse. They are union members often and support whatever administraion is in office without much question, sometimes.

Perhaps another sad division in American society and culture.

harpoonflyby has made a point that I can apply to presenting to Americas construction/demolition workers (people off the street), ordinary people just as 9-11 truth seeking computer nerds are (just refocused), that the construction people will find interesting and qualified to analyse. Therefore justifying taking some time for them to get onthe web and examine the many images of the demolition that expose the true core of the towers while also showing that the multiple steel core columns are never seen. Construction workers do care deeply for America and resent the unsubstantiated allegation of official complicity. This info is something they can handle.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

If the truth movement will focus on the core issue, I will remove the link to the demolition page from the concrete core page so the concrete core issue is separated from the demo matter. It was this way from the beginning but when http://www.universalseed.org would not list the concrete core page I connected them. I hope this is temporary.

But back to the point. Proving that FEMA decieved agencies dependant on its structural reports by misrepresenting the core as multiple steel columns provides a very SAFE but powerful issue, showing intent to decieve intrinsic to concealing information vital to creating a vaild explanation for events, for elected representatives that DO happen to be for protecting our Constitution, our rights and freedoms unconsditionally for themselves, their families, us and our families. Not at all a radical, revolutionary issue by any definition. Simply a very valid question of accuracy and accountability.
 
all this discussion still leaves me puzzled...
yeah ok, lets say that controlled demolition gets proved. with concrete evidence (pun semi-intended). scientifically by experts. beyond ANY reasonable doubt. (even though this is a ridiculous scenario, as anart points out, relying on some kind of idealised fictional notion of an incorrupt american justice system, totally immune from manipulation by the powers that be!)

well, no prob bob. George W B simply says "it was Osama who set off the explosives" and we're back to square one.

It gets us NO NEARER to pinning it on the REAL CULPRITS. unlike the pentagon scenario which would be cut and dried. can't everyone SEE that?!?
isn't it blindingly obvious?

well anyway, thanks anart for the vote of confidence, I was starting to think I was going mad ;)
 
sleepyvinny said:
It gets us NO NEARER to pinning it on the REAL CULPRITS
If FEMA is proven to have TOTALLY misrepresented the design and construction of the towers, that absolutely gets us much closer to identifying the real culprits.

Creating that proof is within our power as a people. We really do not need experts. Just construction people having adequate experience with steel and concrete construction. A mass of experienced opinion created from simple analysis of raw evidence is just about absolute. Particuarly when it come to the difference between the appearance of 47, 1300 foot tempered steel columns and a 1300 foot steel reinforced concrete tube.

They are completely different in appearance in all ways and the demoliton images actually expose the core area completely in several phases.
 
Back
Top Bottom