WATCH: 9/11 Whistleblowers
“But someone would have talked,” say the self-styled skeptics who believe the government’s official conspiracy theory of 9/11. But there’s a problem with this logically fallacious non-argument. “Someone” did talk.
In fact, numerous people have come out to blow the whistle on the events of September 11, 2001, and the cover-up that surrounds those events.
These are the stories of the 9/11 Whistleblowers.
To download this video, or for the audio-only version click here. For a full transcript and links to sources, click here. Please share widely.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Answering vexarb’s comment here cos getting too narrow
———————
Petra, you really ought to consult a clinical psychiatrist instead of engaging in endless altercations — like a child who won’t admit she has lost a game of draughts.
You ask, #1: Do I believe that actors or people otherwise in on the 9/11 psyop were present at the WTC on 9/11?
My answer, No they were not. For instance Larry Silverstein did not turn up at the office, first time ever. Israel shipping company ZIM vacated their office at a financial loss. And there is e-talk of many dual-citizen Israeli-NewYorkers getting emails not to turn up on the day.
You then ask: If not, why not?
I answer, Because they did not want to die.
You ask, #2: Do I believe that people involved in the psyop would have been able to avoid being exposed to the dust covering the WTC? If yes, how?
I answer, mainly by not turning up that day. But also by not being New Yorkers eg, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfie and the rest of the Washington conspirators. And above all, by not being fire fighters or helpers.
Here is a question for you, Petra: What is better than presence of mind in a dangerous situation?
Answer: Absence of body.
“And when the crime’s discovered, MacAvity’s not there” — TS Eliot, Practical Cats.
—————————
vexarb, I did have a chuckle. They TOLD us Larry had a dermatology appointment and they TOLD us about e-talk – truther-targeted propaganda. Course Larry wasn’t there but then we really do have to wonder who exactly was in the buildings, don’t we? I wasn’t thinking of people like Larry more like the people on the ground, agency response staff and media. Perhaps you think none of them were in the know? You think just a few at the top managed to pull all the strings without knowing collaborators on the ground?
Conversation between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse:
“Can you confirm that it was No 7 that just went in?” [“Went in” is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
“Yes, sir.”
“And you guys knew this was comin’ all day.”
“We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”
The cubic volume of WTC-7 was 4.5 times less than that of the combined twin towers but we don’t see about 20% of the dust. If you compare images of the dust around the twin towers to that around WTC-7 it is far greater than 5 times more. Demolitions are about cutting supports not about pulverising concrete and the dust is like powder – it’s much finer than you’d expect from demolition. It is very obvious when you see all the people covered in dust and the two or three inches covering lower Manhattan that the dust is not simply a result of the demolitions.
Editor:
Petra, Steve De’ak looks like a con artist selling intentionally ridiculous claims about 9/11 in order to discredit the Truth movement. The WTC buildings were not empty tubes filled with fake dust. Several people on this page have patiently explained that to you. Please don’t fill these threads with evidentially nul, physically impossible and basically insane claims. Open discussion is one thing, but please at least respect basic rational thinking and the laws of physics
Editor, I have not looked closely at the claims of any gutting of the buildings, however, I think the evidence shows clearly that dust was stored in the buildings regardless and used for a multiplicity of purposes. As I say, the cubic volume of WTC-7 was about 20% of that of the combined twin towers and it doesn’t look as if 20% of the dust was produced in its demolition. As I also say, demolition is about cutting supports not pulverising concrete – that is wasted energy.
Regardless of the size of the towers why would we see so much dust of a powder-type nature covering the surrounding area?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html
Can you point to a single other demolition where you see a layer of dust of any depth let alone two or three inches of dust stretching as far as six blocks?
If you watch these demolitions you will see the clouds emanating as the buildings come down do not go very far. Also, while it may seem that the clouds are dust clouds I believe the cauliflower shape of the clouds indicates that they are pyroclastic clouds of gases from the explosives similar to those from volcanic eruptions. They may not contain as much dust as they seem to but in any case there is no sense of any kind of inches-thick layer of dust settling to extend far and wide.
Please try to think in terms of logic and reason as well as evidence. We can see that there would be a number of reasons the perps might want to use planted dust – a motive does not prove anything, of course, but it helps support what seems to be compelling evidence.
Just to recall 2 past whistle blower Generals. They were the experts in this field. It was their job. Remember how they were ignored. They spoke up anyway. They stood for the people. They discovered as we have, that the lives of ‘we the people’ are of no significance to our owners unless doing their bidding.
Major general on 9/11
https://youtu.be/T2XV3Edd2dc
USAF Brig. General on OK City bombing
https://youtu.be/VR4Iyo9mhy0
In the hall of mirrors we live in it will probably be a long time – if ever – before we find out what really happened on 9/11.
I think the important thing is to stop squabbling about how it was done, but to just generally acknowledge that ‘something was done’ and the official explanation is a crock of whatsis. That way the ‘9/11 was an inside job’ might start getting into a far wider public consciousness; and who knows, we might even get a proper enquiry into it all.
Hey, Kids, is this video about science, technology, health, psychology, politics, environment; or is it, as Kevin Ryan whistleblew: “about what sort of world we want to live in”? You decide.
“Let me ask you a political question: Will you marry me?” — Fiddler on the Roof
I seriously respect James Corbett’s work, he has done so much to help cut thru the disinfo we’re fed in the MSM, the vid shown here by OffG is one of his best.
What surprises me is that 7/7 doesn’t get as much as attention as 9/11. Very similar M.O. for both, main suspects connected to the Intelligence Services, similar security exercises being staged at the same time, even the same places in 7/7, inoperative security cameras, ppl being warned in advance etc. Also, the investigation for 7/7 is just as iffy as that of 9/11.
Operation Gladio never stopped, these abominations are meant to shock and scare us so much we’ll plead for the lunatics to take over the asylum.
7/7 Truth website
http://julyseventh.co.uk/
I have a big problem with Corbett, in that he has always refused to see Fukushima for what it is; ie, probably the biggest manmade disaster in history. I’m sure Corbett will enjoy the 2020 Tokyo Olympics (you-couldn’t-make-it-up).
The so-called ‘alternate media’ is just as infiltrated and corrupted as the mainstream media. Be very wary of alternate media bods who have unlimited funds and put out slick productions.
ps. as far as I’m aware, nothing Corbett says about 9/11 is radical or particularly new. The spooks know that all this stuff is already out there, and in my opinion the likes of Corbett repeat it in order to give themselves credibility.
… or he could be one himself, no? One should always be very circumspect about “whistleblowers”. They make great disinformation agents. And as a YouTuber says with regard to ex-CIA agents: “There is no ex. There is no ex-CIA.” Whistleblowers and ex-CIA agents – perfect cover for disinformation agents. We must also, as you indicate, always bear in mind that the perps are willing to push out heaps of truth … only to cover important lies … although to give them their due … they always tell us the truth extra to propagandistic purposes with their signs – the popped out nose cone, the melting-into-buildings-planes, the popped-up alive terrorists, the perfect implosion of WTC-7 completely unnecessary for their TERROR story.
perfect cover for disinformation agents
Do tell.
I won’t stick my neck out on 9/11 – just to say there’s wall-to-wall controlled opposition as is only to be expected … but sometimes it’s hard to tell the pros from the useful idiots.
Wikileaks whistleblower disinfo agent – Chelsea Manning
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/wikileaks-controlled-opposition.html
Australian military whistleblower disinfo agent – David McBride
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/afp-raids-and-prosecution-of-whistleblowers-sparks-global-condemnation/#comment-4521235249
Petra, while you’re touting videos claiming the WTCs were pumped full of thousands of tonnes of fake dust and nine-foot high mannequins were being thrown out the windows by persons unknown – does it ever cross your mind that you just might be one of those useful idiots?
So PSJ, hypothetically, do you not think packing the towers with dust a genius idea for the psyop? I have to say I do. It would achieve all the following and no doubt even more. What do you think hypothetically? You like hypothesizing, don’t you?
The dust had a multiplicity of functions including (but I’m sure not limited to):
— make the collapses more spectacular
— make controlled demolition less obvious
— make WTC look like a warzone, enhancing the sense of enormity and terror of the event
— provide distraction in the form of Judy Woods’, “Where did the towers go?”, nonsense
— provide distraction and to entrench the sense of evilness of the perpetrators making real death and injury more plausible in the alleged deaths of first responders and others due to illness caused by the “toxic dust”
— provide the “handfuls of dust containing human remains” propaganda
Petra, no need to _add_ dust: there is always enough coming from pulverized concrete. See videos of normal, run-of-the-mill controlled demolitions. WTC was dustier than usual because it is (was) bigger than usual, and needed more explosive than usual. Also those old towers contained a lot of fine asbestos fibre.
“King Pompey, the Emperor’s ape,
Shuddering black in his temporal cape
Of dust, said: “The dust is everywhere:
Indianopolis and the Acropolis …” — Edith Sitwell
I will get back to you on whether dust was added or not, vexarb, however I think the de-asbestosising bill was propaganda to reinforce the callousness of the perps. They wouldn’t do something so injurious to health. That would be crazy. Those involved would have been at the WTC themselves. Either there never was asbestos – I think the far likelier possibility – or they removed it. What was the alleged quote for? 1 billion? Think they might be pulling out legs there? There is so much to suggest they knew when they built those buildings they were going to bring them down.
Petra: “They wouldn’t do something so injurious to health”.
Dear Petra / Flaxgirl,
We all like you and admire your intelligence but please, please take Admin’s advice and consult a psychiatrist, or at least a therapist. Your tender heart forces your mind to look away (and lock away) from some aspects of reality. Psychiatrists call it “being in denial”; I know because I suffer from that syndrome myself. The tendency is not incapacitating as long as one is aware and keeps it in check.
With very best wishes.
Vexarb, Apologies. I’ve expressed myself imperfectly. I think the perps are perfectly capable of extreme callousness. When I say they wouldn’t do something so injurious to health I don’t mean it from the standpoint of any delicacy of feeling, I mean it would be stupid because they are so obviously guilty of the psyop and we can only infer that all that asbestos showered everywhere could result in numerous cases of disease rather than the the modest number that seem to have a “profile”. Just as the number of people jumping up and down about the government murdering their loved ones seems vastly incommensurate with the number you’d expect from the deaths of 3,000 people, the number of those jumping up and down suffering from the dust-related problems also seems vastly incommensurate with the number you’d expect.
Also, similarly to Admin, you miss an important reason I proffer: some of those involved in the psyop would be at the WTC and dust does not discriminate in its target. Do you agree, vexarb, that those involved in the psyop did not exist in a protective bubble at the WTC and thus would not have been able to avoid contamination by asbestos-contaminated dust should any have been showered down?
Evidence please. Still waiting.
How things ‘seem’ to you is not evidence. Nor do you get to make an outlandish claim without data and then demand others prove you wrong.
How many people have suffered ill health or shortened life from the dust? How many would be ‘commensurate’?
Answer these basic questions now or stop taking up space with this claim.
In terms of commensurate it is really quite hard to judge. All I will say is that I have a sense of these people having a “profile”. I’d probably expect class actions. I’d expect lots of legal things to be going on and not just the single “Lawyers’ Committee” we’ve been told about. In 1666 they set up a committee to investigate the cause of the fire a few weeks after it occurred and in 2002 they set up a 9/11 Commission. Now we have a Lawyers’ Committee.
Edited to remove link-spamming
Case for deaths for dust being a lie.
— They lied about death and injury and we can tell that part of the propaganda strategy targeted at truthers is to make us believe that the perps are very evil and will stop at nothing so there is no special reason to believe their stories of people dying agonising deaths from toxic dust.
— People involved in the psyop were at the WTC. Dust does not discriminate so it makes no sense for toxic dust to be showered down on those involved in the operation as well as those not involved.
— They told us Janette McKinlay died from dust-related illness, however, we can infer that Janette McKinlay is/was a disinformation agent because she said that she saved a handful of dust and that human remains were found in it but the evidence favours death and injury being staged.
You need to have a base of knowledge and understanding to build on when you judge things, Admin. You don’t seem to have built yourself any kind of knowledge base or comprehension of the nature of the event that was 9/11. You do not seem to see how it fits on a continuum dating from at least 1666, as shown by Gloria Moss’s recent article. You seem to accept without question and become highly-emotionally invested in any old narrative fed to you. Being emotionally invested in stories is not the appropriate mindset to analyse 9/11. Detachment is key. Can you please identify what lies you think have been told about 9/11 from the perps’ side?
What do you consider your contribution to the understanding of 9/11, if any, and how has your understanding evolved over the time you started to study it? I have a website on which is quite a lot of evidence-based analysis of 9/11 and other staged events. My understanding has evolved considerably in the 5 years I’ve studied it and other staged events.
1. I have removed your repeat-link to your ‘challenge’, as I told you we would if you attempted to divert with this again.
2. This:
Is you using your belief that deaths didn’t occur as a reason to reject evidence that they did.
Do not say ‘the evidence favours death and injury being staged, ‘ one more time w/o producing at least one piece of that ‘evidence’
This nonsense is offensive to reason and needs to stop.
So not censorship exactly but editorialising of comments. That’s interesting. And editorialising with false reason. I did not link to my challenge, Editor, but to my EVIDENCE. Not challenge.
At my link which I will repeat here and ask you not to editorialise are the 10 points I provide to support death and injury staged.
So far, Editor, you have not provided a single point to support that death and injury were real.
Not.a.single.point.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html
Don’t take a tone, Petra. You linked to your challenge. It was deleted as per the previous warning.
I trawled all through this link, making the effort that you decline to bother with.
The only item that seems to offer solid data consistent with fake deaths is the Salem News article that claims the majority of 9/11 victims who died on the day don’t have valid death certificates or SSDI registration.
This is potentially very good evidence. I would suggest pursuing that and forgetting everything else on the page. If it’s true and verifiable then something genuinely odd is going on. It may even suggest victim numbers have been padded.
However that would still be a long way from the kind of proof you would need to justify calling people like Janette McKinley – who have been interviewed, and are at very least verifiably physically real – ‘frauds.’
The rest of what you have is just inference, assumption and occasionally downright misinformation.
That photo of the deceased ‘jumper’ is entirely consistent with how a human body responds to high impact trauma. I strongly suggest you look into this, ask qualified trauma experts to confirm this and then remove that pic from your evidence of fakery – it’s actually evidence of the exact opposite.
In future copy and paste relevant citations from your links please, people don’t have time to trawl your pages looking for something relevant.
You may assert that I linked to my challenge but I remember linking to the evidence.
Relevant citations from your links? I don’t know what you mean. I say there are 10 points favouring staged death and injury on that page and I give links where appropriate. I’m not sure what else I should do.
I don’t hold what you hold as good evidence of high value, Editor, because you display that you don’t use reason and logic well. Your understanding of 9/11 or staged events in general shows no signs of evolving. I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if all you feel you know to be true is that the buildings collapsed by controlled demolition – which is, of course, the level of knowledge the perps want you to stay at.
Planes don’t melt into buildings but perhaps you think that Newtonian physics was broken on 9/11? So if planes don’t melt into buildings we know right off the bat that 265 people did not die in plane crashes.
The perpetrators give us the signs and this is evidenced all over the place. I have a page on 10 of them but there are scores, if not hundreds more. It’s even got a name: “revelation of the method”. But if you never take this highly evident fact on board then you can’t use it in your analysis. You’re not working with a full tool set.
So while to you only the anomalous death records work as evidence other things work as evidence too. The doctored photos of Bob and Bobby, for example.
I provide three items that support jumpers being fake:
— the smoke looks as if it’s being pumped at regular intervals from where the alleged jumpers are jumping
— there is a dead body and I describe how it looks fake – can you describe how it looks real?
— the photographer who allegedly photographed the falling man happened to be behind Robert Kennedy when he was assassinated. You believe that?
But the thing is, Editor, you are under as much obligation as I am to provide evidence. If anything, if they lied about the buildings and the planes then isn’t it far more likely that they lied about death and injury than not … and, in fact, we know they did because no one died in plane crashes. There is no default in relation to 9/11. No default.
You may not accept my 10 points but the fact is that you have not even provided for consideration a single piece of evidence to support real death and injury.
Not.a.single.piece.
What I wonder is: why do you believe that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11? Why do you believe it? I mean the PERPS are the ones telling you this alleged fact. Why do you believe them on this alleged fact but not on others.
Just to add, vexarb, while Admin’s comment to me was full of sound and fury, its validity is not at all commensurate with its vehemence. In response to their outrage at my claim that death and injury were staged I merely asked for a single piece of evidence that supports they were real with a link to my 10 points supporting staged. No response, as usual. Where is the validity of this outrage? And where is the validity of the suggestion I seek some kind of help. Surely, it is people who have no evidence to back their passionately-supported beliefs who are the ones needing help.
Dear Petra,
Far from being “full of sound and fury” Admin went out of their way to praise a contribution of yours. But unwillingness to acknowledge that thousands of New Yorkers died and continue to die because of 911, or to acknowledge that dust is a normal byproduct of controlled demolition: these are signals that Admin was rightly alarmed to warn you about. The psychiatric term is “being in denial”. A clinical psychologist might help you to avoid getting entangled in lengthy altercations. There are therapeutic methods that strengthen the faculty for objectivity and “reality testing”; the exercises include board games conducted in a friendly manner but with rules (as opposed to creative play or free association).
With best wishes.
Vexarb,
Questions:
— Do you believe that actors or people otherwise in on the 9/11 psyop were present at the WTC on 9/11? If not, why not?
— Do you believe that people involved in the psyop would have been able to avoid being exposed to the dust covering the WTC? If yes, how?
— In view of the fact that people in on the psyop were at WTC do you believe that toxic dust would have been showered on these people regardless?
— Do you believe that it is preposterous to suggest that the stories of people dying agonising deaths from toxic dust is propaganda of a “controlled opposition” kind? If so, why?
Petra, you really ought to consult a clinical psychiatrist instead of engaging in endless altercations — like a child who won’t admit she has lost a game of draughts.
You ask, #1: Do I believe that actors or people otherwise in on the 9/11 psyop were present at the WTC on 9/11?
My answer, No they were not. For instance Larry Silverstein did not turn up at the office, first time ever. Israel shipping company ZIM vacated their office at a financial loss. And there is e-talk of many dual-citizen Israeli-NewYorkers getting emails not to turn up on the day.
You then ask: If not, why not?
I answer, Because they did not want to die.
You ask, #2: Do I believe that people involved in the psyop would have been able to avoid being exposed to the dust covering the WTC? If yes, how?
I answer, mainly by not turning up that day. But also by not being New Yorkers eg, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfie and the rest of the Washington conspirators. And above all, by not being fire fighters or helpers.
Here is a question for you, Petra: What is better than presence of mind in a dangerous situation?
Answer: Absence of body.
“And when the crime’s discovered, MacAvity’s not there” — TS Eliot, Practical Cats.
Petra — The hypothesis you’re presenting is that the WTC towers were essentially fake buildings with no poured concrete above lobby height. This assumed absence is then used as a basis for believing the massive amounts of dust generated by the implosions was not pulverised WTC concrete but ‘fake’ dust introduced by the perps.
This hypothesis is presented without data and is fundamentally implausible.
1. I simply don’t have any idea how one would possibly go about ‘packing’ two 100-floor buildings with dust even supposing you wanted to and had limitless resources. We’re talking upwards of 1,000 tonnes of material. How would it be remotely achievable?
2. The claim on the website you link to that the towers had no concrete or fixtures or furnishing in them beyond the lobby is refuted by the fact the towers are known to have been functional buildings with numerous tenants. If it’s to be alleged these data are fake then some evidence for this needs to be adduced. Currently none is presented.
Frankly this looks like Judy Wood’s nonsense taken to the next level of absurdity.
does it ever cross your mind that you just might be one of those useful idiots?
Well, better a useful idiot than a useless idiot — there’s not much of a market for those.
I thought of another reason for the dust, PSJ. I knew there’d be at least one more. Makes it easier to get all those poor traumatised people looking as if they were there at the time, doesn’t it? They could film all these people covered in flour or whatever at some other time (a bit inconvenient on the day) so the dust works its magic by making the people look like they fit right in to the WTC-covered-in-dust scene.
Remember this woman? She had me totally fooled – not saying she was in on it. For all I know, she may have believed she was participating in some random drill but no doubt she had signed a tight confidentiality clause. It’s pretty hilarious watching the witness testimony now that I know better. Pretty hilarious.
I do owe you some thanks, PSJ. I think your challenging me on the planes helped refine my thoughts to realise that the planes are where truthers should focus. It’s a much more direct line to the key truth of staged death and injury.
Start with planes:
Fake planes ergo no building collapses by fire and ergo 265 faked deaths … not so far to go to complete staged death and injury, no?
Start with buildings:
Planes might still be real, death and injury might still be real … for those who have no clue about how psyops are conducted and think the US government would use real planes and kill all those people in such a cold-blooded and callous way when controlled demolition is so obvious.
They’ve got us all running round like headless chickens, haven’t they, over the buildings? Hats off!
Muchas gracias!
Another MUST SEE!
So off topic.
The documentary about Attica is now watchable.
Contrary to what they assumed, there were signs of bowing and sagging in the towers well before the collapse Facts “9/11 Skeptics” don’t want you to see: REAL 911 Truth
There would naturally be bowing as the supports were blown out by explosions. Eye witness reports support this happening for some while before implosion.
Unless you have an explanation for symmetrical implosion, massive high temps, free fall acceleration and enough energy to hurl steel beams way outside the footprint, to say nothing of the unreacted nano thermite allegedly discovered in the rubble, you’re just smoke blowing.
Ryan is likely tired of people such as yourself endlessly recycling refuted claims in hopes of befuddling the under-informed.
Dr Judy Wood’s work is never ever referred to ?
Jean, Judy Wood is controlled opposition. The dust in the buildings was planted. “What happened to the towers?” is distraction propaganda. They love having multiple theories going to keep people squabbling over them. It really doesn’t matter what brought the buildings down exactly – it was controlled demolition, meaning inside conspiracy – that is all we need to know.
The dust had a multiplicity of functions including (but I’m sure not limited to):
— make the collapses more spectacular
— make controlled demolition less obvious
— make WTC look like a warzone, enhancing the sense of enormity and terror of the event
— provide distraction in the form of Judy Woods’, “Where did the towers go?”, nonsense
— provide distraction and to entrench the sense of evilness of the perpetrators making real death and injury more plausible in the alleged deaths of first responders and others due to illness caused by the “toxic dust”
— provide the “handfuls of dust containing human remains” propaganda
See webpage by Steve De’ak on the dust and the gutted towers: https://911crashtest.org/?p=4008
The three 9/11 basics:
— Controlled demolition
— Faked plane crashes
— Death and injury staged
9/11 was a psyop. I’m not sure why people do not accept that a psyop means that you psyop people into believing things, you don’t do them for real unless you want to or have to. They love psyopping us and take pride in psyopping to the max. Doing something for real when not wanted or needed would be so far below their dignity – that would be epic fail as far as they’re concerned. Killing the people in the towers would not be their MO at all.
What in sam’s hill are you talking about? What dust ‘in the buildings’?
It may have passed you by, Petra the super-sleuth but post-9/11 there were no buildings left for the dust to be ‘in’. The dust was the buildings. All of them – minus the steel frames.
So, to clarify, are you claiming someone ‘planted’ in excess of 500 tonnes of dust on lower Manhattan immediately prior to or just after the towers fell down?
Pained scientist, the NARRATIVE is that the dust was the buildings, the NARRATIVE. No serious scientist takes Dr Judy Wood’s theory seriously in the least so that is an indication that what she says is rubbish, isn’t it? So if what she says is rubbish then doesn’t “magic dust” make perfect sense.
OK, I had a father, who at frequent intervals shouted the word “propaganda” at whatever the latest narrative coming his way he deemed to be propaganda so I guess I was inculcated in the notion of propaganda but why does everyone say something as fact when it is only the NARRATIVE, a narrative of which we should exercise extreme suspicion at all times.
From Steve De’ak’s page which I commend to you:
https://911crashtest.org/?p=4008
Apparently the towers were dismantled, therefore the dust must have been in dust form at the time of the first explosions. Proof of this can be seen in the dust and paper boiling in the shock and awe fireball:
It can also be seen in the dust and paper all around the ground of the WTC immediately after the first explosions, long before the demolition.
This video is damning indeed, but you won’t find many truthers willing to talk about it, or accept it for what it is.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Petra these guys are blowing smoke for one reason – because the unreacted nanothermite in the dust proves elements of the US government conspired to bring those buildings down.
Making gullible idiots believe any old baloney that conceals this fact (up to and including the hilarious idea that 500 tonnes of fake dust was somehow secreted in the WTC prior to demolition) is just what these snake oil shysters are paid to do.
At least this one is funny unlike Woods’ dank bullshit.
Get out more. Talk to some real world people and reconnect with reality.
Pained Scientist, I don’t follow your logic. That they had loads of extra dust making spectacular displays does not exclude the presence of traces of nanothermite in the genuine dust produced from the explosions or traces found one way or another.
As my understanding of staged events has evolved I’ve become much more suspicious of the information fed to us regardless of its source. In the case of learning about the twin towers magic dust, I didn’t simply “believe” it. My immediate reaction was “Aha! That explains a part of the 9/11 jigsaw that was puzzling me.”
In the early stages along my path of awakening I accepted as true the terrible dust diseases that first responders and others were afflicted with and the enormous de-asbestosing bill we were shown. This made me think about the perps, “How cruel and shameless – to use their terror event to explode these buildings cheaply and have no concern for all these poor people suffering agonising deaths.” It was probably the thought of these agonising deaths that bothered me more than the deaths of the 3,000 who allegedly died in the towers and the planes.
After I woke up to staged death and injury I realised that this was all propaganda reinforcing truthers’ belief in the evilness of the perps – that they would be so cruel and shameless. If the collapses of the buildings really had involved asbestos particles and other toxic dust a lot more people than some highly-profiled first responders and people such as Janette McKinlay (who alleged she collected a handful of dust and presented it for examination) would be affected. What puzzled me was: well, I know these people are fake but why AREN’T people dying agonising deaths from the dust – it’s all over the place?
As a scientist I wonder if you’ve actually looked at the videos linked to in my post. A scientist should really consult the evidence first, no?, before delivering, rather patronisingly, their opinion.
Please consult the evidence and consider the logic of the dust. The magic dust was genius. And wouldn’t the perps be chortling about Dr Judy Wood and her “What happened to the towers?” nonsense. What a chortle … and what a massive, massive timewaster and distraction.
To start with you simply claimed less than 3,000 people died on the day, which is at least arguable on a real world basis – body counts could feasibly be exaggerated for effect.
Then you claimed the towers were empty and no one died on the day, which, given the scale of the operation alone, seems highly improbable if not impossible, but still broadly within the bounds of rational argument.
Now you’re claiming no one died at all, even after the fact, because (correct me if I’m wrong), the dust wasn’t really toxic, the perps just made it look like it was by lacing the real non-toxic totally safe dust with fake toxic dust, which still didn’t actually kill anyone despite being spewed all over lower Manhattan.
This is not a remotely rational claim even on its own terms.
Back in the day you wrote an article for us about Noam Chomsky’s sophistry that was actually very good and cogent. Since then you have simply degenerated to a point you no longer seem capable of grasping basic connective reasoning. Your own claims contradict each other or are insane edifices of layered assumptions. You claim moments of fact-free Damascene revelation that appear purely religious in nature. You don’t seem to comprehend that simply saying ‘and then I realised NO ONE DIED!!!!!!’ doesn’t constitute evidence, it’s simply a statement of belief, which you then reinforce by claiming all evidence to the contrary is fake.
This is borderline psychotic behaviour. We have been disinclined to believe you’re Judy Wooding this, but it’s getting hard to avoid that conclusion.
Support this latest round of fakery claims with solid evidence or stop posting.
For example – get the actual figures of those suffering ill health or dying from dust exposure, and show us evidence these individuals are all fake.
If you can’t do that rescind the claim as fact-free and incredibly offensive.
Do NOT respond to this with your usual fifty paras about your $10,000 challenge or how you personally came to see the light, or demand other people find your evidence for you. If you simply repeat that nonsense it will be deleted as duplicate posting as you have already made these statements numerous times on numerous threads.
Solid evidence of fakery please, or nothing.
Perhaps you should examine the reasons for arriving at that conclusion, linked to in Petra’s posts.
Explained in detail here:
Excerpt:
Steve, you say that “buildings don’t turn to dust in the real world. ” So what do you say about Maggie’s video below? And many more like it; all showing tons of concrete pulverized into clouds of dust by high explosives routinely used in Controlled Demolition. An everyday procedure in the real world.
Dear Editor
You asked for solid evidence.
You ignore it when it is provided.
Links that point to taboo clues the Guardian won’t touch:
How they faked the plane crash videos:
https://911crashtest.org/pulling-the-wool-over-the-eyes-of-the-world/
How they cut the holes:
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/
How they destroyed the towers:
https://911crashtest.org/taboo-truths-clues-avoided-by-the-truth-movement/
Oh dear Petra, Do you not have access to u tube? Take a peek here and see what happens in controlled demolition. See the dust? And look at 4.58 and 8.55 see the squibs and see the twin towers replicated here.
Maggie,
The dust from your link was NOTHING like the cloud of dust that engulfed Manhattan on 9/11. Also Petra posted a link to a video that showed dust and paper pouring out of a wall panel long before demolition, which can only mean the dust was in dust form prior to the demolition.
Steve
https://youtu.be/aoKiBn4tCNw
Of course there was more dust on 9/11 – look at the size of that building compared to the (two) 1,000 tonne towers!
Are you going for some kind of prize for the most factually baseless and all round stupid hypothesis about 9/11 ever postulated?
At least you have a fan in Petra. But she also believes there was some guy on the 80th floor throwing crash dummies out the windows just prior to demolition, so you know, there’s that.
So believing they were real people is far more intelligent is it, Pained Scientist. I have 10 points favouring staged death and injury while no one, so far, has provided a single point favouring real. Can you identify anything that clearly says real people rather than dummies? What is so outrageous about throwing dummies just before demolition? Killing people when you don’t have to and when it’s so laughably easy to fake I find far more outrageous.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html
I simply do not understand it. 9/11 was a psyop, lots of people call it a psyop, but they don’t in the least think of it as a psyop because in psyops you don’t kill people for real unless you want them dead, certainly not 3,000.
Pained scientist, let me guess. You think the planes were real? Planes do not melt into buildings so right off the bat we know NO ONE WAS KILLED IN A PLANE. If they faked the deaths of the plane people why not fake the building people too? Why would they ONLY fake the plane people and not the building people? They couldn’t evacuate everyone as they managed to do no problem in WTC-7?
There is no comparison. The dust in Maggie’s video didn’t even cover the surrounding buildings, much less the whole city. And of course she (like you) completely ignores the evidence of dust and paper boiling in the shock and awe explosion, covering the ground after the shock and awe explosion, and a 12-foot plume of dust and paper was captured pouring out of a wall column of a building that would later disappear into a cloud of dust and paper.
Are you saying thermite was used for the shock and awe explosion too?
Just to clarify, are you actually claiming the twin towers were hollow tubes filled with ‘fake’ dust?
Why would this ever be a reality in the real world?
What I am doing is following the evidence where it leads. If you dispute my interpretation of the evidence (dismantling; removed bolts, removed floors, removed windows), and planted dust and paper being catapulted out of the buildings by the ream, I look forward to hearing your interpretation of this same evidence.
That’s what that other purveyor of bullshit distraction, Judy Wood, says. She says ‘the evidence’ takes her to Hutchinson and his stop motion videos, you say ‘ the evidence’ takes you to witless ideas about fake dust. In reality you’re both a couple of sideshow hucksters selling bullshit to the gullible.
This is not about interpretation, this is about basic sanity and a grasp of simple science realities.
The floors aren’t removed they’re exploded into that dust you insanely claim is ‘fake’.
The bolts aren’t ‘removed’ they’re ripped out because the fucking building has been exploded.
Ditto the windows (do you really expect them to be intact?)
It’s an office, of course there’s paper in the debris!
But you know all this dontcha Steve. You’re just smoke blowing
Unlike Judy Wood (and you for that matter), I address the evidence in the impact holes. It is just evidence. If you and Judy had a leg to stand on you wouldn’t avoid the evidence that leads me to my conclusions.
Dear Editor,
The evidence that leads me to my conclusions has been provided. Please try to use the same to support your conclusions. I understand that the implications of my conclusions are difficult to swallow, but the clues provided don’t change, even if my conclusions are wrong. I am open for a better interpretation for the evidence, but ignoring it, and questioning the sanity of those who address it, isn’t the act of a genuine truth seeker.
Steve
Steve, that’s not typical white thermite dust. It’s typical black smoke with orange fireball. The video commentator says he can smell the smoke. There are no explosions because we are only into the first minutes of theatre — the burning kerosene jet fuel. The real business of controlled demolition began an hour after this the’trical
Vexarb,
If that’s not typical white thermite dust, why does anyone assume that’s what it is? I contend they do so because “thermite” was dangled in front of our faces by the fully controlled 9/11 Truth Movement.
If you fully believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, I wonder how you can also contend they were fully occupied. There would be no way to prepare the buildings for demolition without every tenant being aware of it.
It’s not difficult Steve, pay attention.
The white dust pre-implosion is aluminum oxide from reacted thermite charges, the black smoke is poorly oxygenated fires on the impact floors, the paper is office debris blown out the busted windows, the gray dust post-implosion is exploded concrete, gypsum and furnishings.
If all you have to defend your bullshit fake dust hypothesis is pretending to not understand the simple facts that prove you 100% wrong, maybe it’s time to give up or go find a more gullible set of people who may buy your snake oil
Irony.
Please note the small amount of gypsum that was there to “turn to dust.” Are you sure you don’t want to revise your assumption?
https://youtu.be/6KWY1Ct4xg4
https://youtu.be/GoECfeX-36U
Steve De’Ak: “If that’s not typical white thermite dust, why does anyone assume that’s what it is?”
Huh?! If the commentator in that video said it was smoke and he could smell the smoke because the wind was coming in his direction, why does anyone insist on calling it dust?
Vex – There is what looks like white dust (likely reacted thermite residue) AND black smoke in the video. Mr D is referring to the former, which he claims is NOT reacted thermite but ‘proof’ the twin towers had been filled with concrete dust prior to 9/11 to conceal the ‘fact’ there was no real concrete infrastructure.
His claim is the TTs were fake buildings with no floors between the lobby and the top deck and all the people claiming to live and work there were lying. He is therefore as a corollary forced to conclude that the hundreds of tons of concrete and gypsum dust that ended up covering Manhattan was not the residue of 110 imploded concrete and gypsum floors but ‘fake dust’ that someone pumped into these hollow fake buildings prior to 9/11 to make the demolition look normal.
He is saying that white dust proves he is correct- because why else would there be dust wafting around the towers prior to collapse, right?
He does not say how these hundreds of tons of dust could be pumped in, because clearly it would be impossible even in some mad universe where someone decided it was a good idea.
He’s a distraction merchant. Main job appears to be to blow smoke (or dust!) over controlled demolition in general and nanothermite in particular.
The white dust escaping in that ultimate video is indeed ‘damning’, as it is clear evidence for a thermitic reaction taking place prior to the tower’s implosion.
White ‘smoke’ or dust – actually aluminum oxide – is released as a result of the thermite being activated. In fact it’s such a textbook examplar that researchers have used that very video as primary evidence of thermite in the WTCs
The person claiming this is evidence the WTCs were pre-filled with tonnes of dust is attempting to divert very gullible non-scientific truth seekers away from these solid data and into blind alleys of foolish and empty speculation.
I will get back to you on this point, PSJ.
That was a substantial plume of dust pouring out of a 12-foot wall column. You’re saying that it poured out like that due to thermite?
it’s aluminum oxide dust from what must be a great many thermite charges going off, plus smoke from the low grade fires and paper being wafted from the blown out windows and broken facing by air currents inside the building.
Your idea those buildings had no concrete structures is scientifically illiterate. Your corollary that therefore the perps had to fill the fucking things with thousands of tonnes of ‘fake’ concrete dust before blowing them up is so much more
stupid than your first idea it actually implodes and consumes itself before light can escape it. It’s a black hole of pure unadulterated witlessness that makes Judy Wood look sober and sane.
Really, you assume its aluminum oxide dust (and paper), due to thermite charges? Jay Zimmerman’s video is linked below. Please point out the timestamps of the explosive charges you assume are responsible.
It is based on evidence we all have access to. Perhaps your assumptions are conflicting with your ability to rationally examine the evidence with an unbiased mind.
The dust and paper were visible in the shock and awe fireball, all over the ground after the fireball, and there is video of the dust and paper pouring out of a wall column long before the “thermite” charges you assume brought down the towers.
You know what happens when you assume.
Let the evidence lead where it will
The thermite cutter charges and other timed detonations taking out support structures were going off at intervals between the time of the alleged plane impacts and the final implosion. Not only is this standard demolition practice it’s also completely consistent with eye witness testimony.
Can you explain why you find it surprising that the initial impacts/explosions would be accompanied by dust, smoke and office debris?
Please point to the timestamps on the video where you see the detonations.
Explosions are usually accompanied by dust, but we’re talking about an alleged plane crash and subsequent kerosene eruption that had a huge amount of dust and paper in it. Have you watched the videos of the thick carpet of dust and paper all over the ground?
What office debris are you referring to?
Why would a huge plume of dust and paper pour out of a wall panel long after the “crash” and long before the demolition? Thermite? Point to the timestamp of the thermite detonation that was responsible.
Why do you expect the thermite cutter charge detonations would be visible externally? They’re severing support structures deep in the core. People heard them and white dust is exactly what you would see as an aftermath. QED.
Exactly! But most of your hypothesis appears to be based on forgetting that rather crucial fact.
It was an alleged plane crash into an office building. I understand from experts that offices quite often have paper in them.
Let’s say it again – it was an office building!
Office. Building.
Why wouldn’t it? An office building just had a plane flown through it.
Yes, the white dust is consistent with aluminium oxide being released as thermite reacts. Nanothermite cutter charges would start going off immediately after the plane impacts.
You already asked me that and I answered.
@MLS: “Nanothermite cutter charges would start going off immediately after the plane impacts.”
WTC towers only went down an hour or so _after_ the plane crash, and after the kerosene fireball had burnt out. Look at this video of the start of the real demolition: no fireball, no black smoke going upward, only white dust going sideways and downward. Listen for the pop! pop! pop! of explosive charges now that the tower is going down, one pop at a time, one section at a time.
“N.J. Burkett reporting as Twin Towers begin to collapse on September 11, 2001”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCPVNLLo-mI
[Pity that Burkitt wasted the rest of his video by switching focus to “human interest” panic in the streets instead of following a technically informative sequence of the rest of tower collapsing.]
Then why do you assume they were used? Unicorns weren’t seen either. How can you be sure they weren’t to blame?
Except for the fact that this video of dust and paper pouring out of a wall panel was not accompanied by an explosion. Oops.
Lets consider this. Here is a video of a large volume of paper suddenly flying out of the tower. Like the video of dust and paper pouring out of a wall column above, the paper being catapulted out of the tower by the ream, did not correspond with an explosion.
But all you can say is that it was an office building.
And?
Dust and paper was all that was seen. Most office buildings also include desks, chairs, phones, computers, cubicles, elevator doors, toilets, plumbing pipes and the water therein, and miles and miles of electrical conduit. This particular office building also had restaurants, which include stainless steel steam kettles, stoves, walk in coolers, tile floors, stainless steel work tables, etc. None of that stuff was found in the debris. Oops.
So a large collection of dust and paper collected near the window after the plane crash? I’m trying to envision how this works. Can you please explain it?
It is more consistent with planted dust, which is supported by the photographic and video evidence and doesn’t rely on imaginary charges.
Zimmermann’s video does _not_ show dust, and Zimmerman does _not_ call it dust: he calls it smoke and fire because that’s what it is. That video shows black smoke and an orange fireball — typical of burning kerosene (jet fuel) . There are no explosions because the _real business which is controlled demolition_ was only initiated an hour after the theatre of burning planes had ended.
Of course Zimmerman thought it was smoke. Like you (and most of the world) he thought he was looking at an office building, and won’t consider that the authorities would lie so blatantly.
Smoke doesn’t pour out and down like that.
smoke noun
Save Word
To save this word, you’ll need to log in.
Log In
\ ˈsmōk \
Definition of smoke (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon
Whatever was burning at the time was what was responsible for the rising smoke. Heat rises. The gaseous products of burning materials don’t settle to the ground until after they have cooled. The paper was not burning as it poured out of the column, and the dust was not a gaseous product of combustible materials as evidenced by the way it pours out and down from the towers before it is scattered by the wind.
I understand how badly most people want to believe otherwise, but 9/11 was a simple con trick.
Pained Scientist, you might appreciate what Kevin Ryan said about the thing whic started his doubts. He was working for the Underwriters Laboratory which tested fire resistance cladding on WTC steel, and that cladding tested good for 3 hours; yet his bosses went on TV to say that their test was only good for 1 hour! (Because tWTC was brought down in 1-2 hours, and the Bush regime said it was steel failure in the fire). Why did his bosses lie? Kevin Ryan lost his job, and that was the start of his more satisfying career as a distinguished Truther.
Now why did the Bush “demolition artists” not wait till the buildings had been burning for 3 hours, which really would have begun to weaken the steel (according to Underwriters Lab Test). I guess because they did not want the steel to loose its strength and really start to buckle: that would have disturbed the beautiful symmetry of their controlled demolition. Symmetrical collapse depended on the steel pillars retaining their rated strength — until the Bush regime’s thermite Shaped Charge Lances were detonated and cut through the steel: with explosions going pop! pop! pop! one floor after the other.
I do think Judy Wood is some kind of shill along with guys like Richard D. Hall and Richard Johnson who go out of their way to promote her and her book and many other ‘conspiracy theories’ as well.
It doesn’t make sense that Julian Assange is locked up for whistleblowing (Not to mention quite a few others who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for shining a light on the wrongdoings of others) and there is Judy Wood proclaiming that the government or some evil power has direct energy weapons that turned the towers to dust and yet she gets left alone for years to promote her views and book for years.
There is no doubt whatsoever about Dr Judy Wood, Michael. What mileage they’ve gotten out of her. I wonder if they have internal awards for disinformation agents and, if so, what the categories are. What do you think?
Julian Assange is genuinely locked up but Chelsea wasn’t and won’t be.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/wikileaks-controlled-opposition.html
What has that got to do with the remaining 99.999999999999999999999% of the facts?
You have put a whole new absurdly restrictive focus on tunnel vision. You apparently have a logic issue. Why are you doing this?
What the hell does a li’l external damage have to do with the structural integrity of the buildings Tom? The internal core is what supports such buildings, they can take loadsa external damage yet ppl still be totally safe inside.
Doesn’t matter one little bit about any bowing or sagging; the fires, North Tower debris strikes and whatever else you’d care to throw in caused asymmetrical damage and therefore could not have caused the core columns to all fail instantaneously, completely, and near simultaneously as would be required for the observed global collapse. Jesus God, don’t they teach elementary physics in schools any more?
When you point out facts Kevin Ryan blocks you. I explained that: Controlled demolitions aren’t done by setting off explosives an hour before the building is to come down. & it was a top-down collapse so your argument about lobby & basement level explosives is dumb. Why are you tweeting this crap?
And Kevin Ryan blocked me.
Contrary to what Kevin Ryan assumed, there were signs of bowing and sagging in the towers well before the collapse: https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqf1se
While we can argue all day about whether your pictures actually show evidence of sagging, I’m wondering if you actually watched the whistleblower video before dismissing it as “trash” out of hand? If you watched it you would see that there are two eye witnesses whose accounts of the events that day clearly contradict the official conspiracy theory, as well as a few officials who had first hand experience of other government officials lying and/or covering up information what would contradict the official conspiracy theory. Ofcourse I’m sure you’ll have a bunch of Olympic level verbal gymnastics to get around all of that as well.
Are you serious?
It’s okay. He can’t be.
There is no “evidence” of sagging at all, and I have good eyesight, as well as being very familiar with the idea of “See what you see, not what you are supposed to see.”…
Key points.
The official 9/11 conspiracy theory lacks even the tiniest shred of credibility, be it events purported to have taken place at the WTC, Shanksville or the Pentagon – it amazes how anyone is daft enough to believe a word of it, unless they are either too afraid or too dim to question those who rule over them.
Key evidence was wilfully destroyed by the authorities, presumably with the intention of subverting any subsequent investigation.
So far there has never been any enquiry not tainted by those who initiate them – it seems pretty obvious that asking neocons to investigate their own crime is akin to asking a corrupt white sheriff in the deep south to investigate the suspicious death of a black man while in police custody.
But most importantly this post is about media lies regarding whistleblowers: the media pretend there aren’t whistleblowers when in fact there are – they just ignore them as they do virtually all other facts that contradict the fantasy created by George Bush and his criminal accomplices.
Needless to say when whistleblowers do come forward it is usually at great personal cost to themselves while suffering the double whammy of being sneered at by internet commentators.
Personally I think most of this is pretty straightforward but some individuals still seem to lack sufficient comprehension problems to see the wider picture.
Er, they possibly could both be true
1. People (Firefighters etc ) did hear explosions going off at the basement and sub basement level in WTC1&2.
2. Barry Jennings clearly was aware of explosions going off in WTC7 basement prior to callapsing in a controlled demolition type manner.
2. Say What You See.
WTC1&2. Didn’t Collapse as in a normal contolled demolition. WTC1&2 exploded floor by floor, top to bottom.
WTC7, collapsed more like a controlled demolition.
TFS, you are right, WTC1&2 ‘exploded floor by floor, top to bottom.’ The detonations were bviously synced to disintegrate from top (where the planes hit) downwards — to fit with the Official Report (drafted by the extremely influential Senator who Chaired the Official Commitee).
Explosions in all 3 basements may be standard practice in demolition: take out some of the foundation pillars. Kevin Ryan’s previous article has a Link (if I remember rightly) where some engineer had actually inspected a previous, much older, explosion in the basement of one of the WTC towers; he was amazed at the strength of the design: still standing even though that explosion had taken out some of the basement pillars (presumably those particular pillars on that particular WTC tower had been repaired before 911; but the incident attests to the fact that the WTC towers were over-designed rather than under-designed for safety.
A fine video. It avoids the common pitfall of having loud, distracting music to give it fake “dramatic” validity, and is actually extremely dramatic as a result. That is because we are free to focus on its content instead of some fool’s idea of a bezazzy presentation.
Please, folks, be careful.
The “fine video” to which I refer is the header at the top of this page, not Thomas Murphy’s complaint about being blocked by Kevin Ryan.
I remember visiting New York from Miami on September 3 through September 8, 2001. I was staying at the Millennium Hilton in downtown New York. My birthday was during that week and I had business to attend to in the city. On Thursday September 6, I called a friend and asked her if she would like to join me on my birthday for a drink at Windows on the World at the top of the north tower of the World Trade Center. She said yes and we agreed to meet in the lobby of the north tower and then go up the elevator together. When we met each other in the lobby that evening we were informed by Security that no one was being allowed upstairs. Windows on the World was closed for a few days. We did notice walking around the lobby were some instruction work crews carrying bags.
We then decided to walk over to the South tower and go up to the observation deck at the top, just to enjoy the scenery before heading out into the city to celebrate my birthday. When we arrived in the lobby of the south tower, again we were informed that no one was allowed up that evening due to the fact that there was construction going on on the observation deck, and the upper floors, and that no one was allowed up there. We also noticed in the south tower lobby other similar looking workers carrying bags.
We then left the World Trade Center and headed uptown for an enjoyable evening. We thought it was unusual that both towers had closed the upper floors and we each commented that in all our years in New York we have never seen such an occurrence.
When the trade center towers came down on September 11, my girlfriend called me from the city, and she was in shock. As she sobbed, she remembered those workers in the towers and the fact that no one was being allowed upstairs in either tower.
I commented to her that there are no coincidences.
I have kept my airline seat assignment ticket and my bill from the hotel just in case anyone ever asked me to confirm that I was there before the towers came down.
https://youtu.be/T2XV3Edd2dc
https://youtu.be/VR4Iyo9mhy0
axis, at 7 minutes in your f irst link a patriotic U$ General tells how he could not believe his government could have committed this terrible atrocity against his own country; then by minute 18 this General from U$ Military Intelligence (an institution which up till now I had called an Oxy Moron) has brilliantly connected all the dots which demonstrate that the Bush / Cheney regime had: shut down U$ air defenses to allow the planes unimpeded access to WTC; controlled demolition after the fire spectacle; shut down all surveillance cameras around the Pentagon — except one; that camera showed the approach of a missile not a plane; altered the video to disguise the missile as a plane. The General ends by recounting the patriotism he had felt as a boy, which had stirred him to serve his country. A formidable enemy to the enemy of his people. Reminds me of Scott Ritter and Kevin Ryan. Except that this General asks the ultimate question: Why?”
“Will you, I pray you, ask this demi-devil
Why he hath thus ensnared my soul and body”. — Othello.
Truly, the traitors within have thus ensnared both the soul as well as the body of our country.
The human dilemma is quite a spectacle. It would be interesting to be able to move away from it far enough to obtain a really objective perspective. Is there one? I suppose we would have to completely release our own thoughts about everything, as also being possibly suspect, to achieve that. We might then see if the traitors within were not also ensnared themselves, and how. By what device, or do they simply have no souls….no conscience?
This is somewhat like an insane asylum where some of us just want to relax and others want to kill people. How did the killers get to wear the white coats? While we were napping? What on earth is really running this show? Algorithms? An evolution program gone bad? Have we been hacked by pranksters? The seemingly endless psychopathy of blundering dolts as they help each other rise to power should give us pause to question the whole construct of our reality. Including ourselves. This surely is a lot of violent nonsense. Is there a point to it all?
Axis: “Is there a point to it all?”. Ask a Christian or a Moslem, and the answer will be Yes:
“Things change but one thing never changes: the fight between Good and Evil…” — TS Eliot
Verbax…How do we define evil? When we consider evil, it must be done with some basic idea of good. It should stand to reason that some fundamental understanding of how one effects the other would be agreed on by now. Unfortunately, this consideration is by default a subjective observation in a polarized paradigm. We are always provided an excuse to justify doing what would otherwise be understood as evil. Our minds are wired for this transition. We know how easily we can twist the good and evil paradigm. It’s almost like we look forward to it. When we are told “They are our enemy” “They’ have no God” “They have the wrong God” “We good people must save them from killing themselves, so…..let’s kill them”, we seem to get excited. Do we tell ourselves these things because we want a reason to rape and pillage, but we know we better have a good excuse? To whom or what do we instinctively feel accountable? Is this accountability merely another trick of the mind to add an element of suspense to this game we like to play? At least the Vikings said”Hey, let’s go on a raid” Does the absurdity of it all not give us the slightest suspicion that there is something else entirely going on around here? We can’t be this stupid.
AxisOfOil: “How do we define evil?”.
After studying Socrates, Plato, Kant and Dante I gave up trying to define Good and Evil. And I gave up even trying to combat Sophistries like this: “We know how easily we can twist the good and evil paradigm.” It’s a fight, not a logical argument. Even Good vs Evil could be argued, I doubt that argument can be followed to a satisfactory conclusion among a species of hairless apes 99% of whose DNA is similar to that of chimpanzees.
The best preachers use simple words: Love God, Love your fellow beings, Don’t kill, Don’t steal, Don’t covet, Don’t lie, Respect your elders, Respect tradition, Respect learning. They also preach by acting as role models.
“Preach the Gospel — use words, if necessary.” — St.Francis of Assisi.
Lately I have come to believe the fight is in earnest:
“For we wrestle not [only?] against Flesh and Blood, but [also?] against Principalities and Powers in the Heavens.” — St.Paul
It is a fight, people get hurt, faith is tried to the utmost, the outcome is uncertain:
“Eli, Eli! Lama sabachthani?”.
Damn….you are probably right.