Absolute Truth - debunk the debunkers, out-truth the truthers..

Absolute 9/11 Truth. How do you achieve this, given the huge amounts of information and data available to us, and the simultaneous huge amounts of data UNavailable to us?

There's been a rash of unsupportable theories lately on the side of the "truthers", and a simultaneous bandwagon jumping on those theories by the "debunkers", using the most ridiculous claims they can to discredit the entire movement of truth.

What I propose, therefore, is that in this thread, you may air any theory you like - with a couple of conditions. That theory must be 100% supported by fact - data showing similar events, reasonable scientific hypothesis, evidentiary chains. This goes for truthers and debunkers both, you must support your claims with solid evidence. Please, no use of sensationalist language or ridicule. Every hypothesis here will, I propose, be treated with respect and skepticism, whichever version of the 9/11 truth concept you adhere to.

One thing I am hoping we can avoid, too, is long lists of "facts"; many posters here seem to feel that by listing all the theories or facts they see together, they can discredit all those theories - or credit all of them. Let's take each issue separately, tackle it together, regardless of your point of view, and with respect for the point of view of others.

In other words, let us be rational, respectful and logical human beings and ats members. Let's see if we can tackle the major theories and ideas and put them to bed once and for all. Let's take a look at evidence and come up with all possibilities to explain it, again, regardless of your position. I'm willing to be proven wrong and accept that. Are you?

As a first question, let's take the "micro-nuke" discussion.

Nuclear energy of any kind (be it bomb, power, whatever) depends on one of two basic situations.

(1) Nuclear Fission - large, unstable atoms break into smaller, more stable atoms, releasing energy.

(2) Nuclear Fusion - Small unstable atoms fuse with other atoms to create larger, stable atoms, releasing energy.

Generally speaking, in both the case of a bomb, and nuclear power, we are talking about Nuclear Fission - using either uranium or plutonium. In the case of a bomb, an unstable chain reaction is created by putting a certain number of unstable atoms together - the energy released by one decaying atom 'hits' another, and causes it to decay. Most conventional nuclear weapons cause this to happen either by using conventional explosives to compress nuclear material, or using a system that joins two smaller groups of material together - in both cases, you thus create something known as the "critical mass" for the chain reaction to take place. In nuclear power, this also happens, but control mechanisms, such as lead barriers, or removing part of the material when necessary keeps the chain reaction controllable, rather than uncontrolled in the case of a bomb. Chernobyl being an example of where the controlled reaction turned uncontrolled, essentially turning the reactor into a bomb.

This is a simplistic explanation, but basically correct.

I don't know as much about nuclear fusion bombs, but I do know that nuclear fusion power generators are not yet practical - taking more energy to create the reactions than it does to produce them.

So, these 'mini-nukes'.. what sort of reaction are they utilizing? which elements? Anybody know?

Stroke of genius Inannamute - this is worth getting to the right headspace for.

Absolute 9/11 Truth. How do you achieve this, given the huge amounts of information and data available to us, and the simultaneous huge amounts of data UNavailable to us?

There are some interesting questions here hat no one takes up; what constitutes proof? What is undeniably true? Is there such thing as an indisputable fact? Is getting our collective head on straight wise or a bit too dangerous? Should we continue to play the draining and harmless game of building up and tearing down towers of BS?

Philosophically, I'm of the belief that absolute truth on any matter is unattainable and unknowable. Our facts are fragmentary, let's be honest here, and really any piece of data we see could theoreticlly be faked.

But I also believe in reason, science, etc. There is "common sense," no matter how uncommon it becomes in certain quarters at certain times. There is a real reality in which things happened one way and one way only and so... a simple but oft-ignored rule of thumb:
The best way to win a debate is by being right. The only appropriate backup is reasonability.

Okay, I feel comfortable having you moderate a thread here - accept a theory and we'll see what's undeniable, what's questionable, what's logical, etc with lotsa input jamming up the channels and people re-contesting, etc. Oh boy. Actually what is this supposed to be again?

Okay so micro-nukes or whatever. I don't know. It doesn't sound right. I can see how maybe they'd use whatever they had, exotic systems we don't even know of and so wouldn't detect... wouldn't nukes be noticable? Like massive radiation lingering at least until now? Can we get a NY resident out there with a geiger counter?

I'd say unless I'm shown otherwise this is outta hand dismissed as silly.
As for theories to propose, I have no burning desire to lay out a concrete claim.

No, this one that people can't agree on:
The Bush Administration Benefitted from 9/11
No supports unless asked for. Debunkers deny this all the time, while I find it self-evident (which is why I'm presenting it with no supports)

Whaddayall think?

Thanks for the response mate, I thought my rationality had ended up being too boring for most of the posters around here .

Did the Bush administration benefit. Hmm.

Political power and standpoints are hard things to measure in a case like this, because obviously we have no way of knowing what opinions of Bush & Co. would have been without 9/11 and the Iraq war - would he have made it through a second term, for example? I do remember that a significant part of the campaigning around 2004 was centered around the idea of Bush as "Commander in chief, warleader!" and the idea that you should not change your leader in times of war.

Let's look at this from a list of what he possibly could have had to gain, what areas.

Political - did this strengthen the position for a second term or not?. Were they able to achieve political goals and agendas - such as laws and regulations either being created or removed - with more ease after 9/11?

Financial - Personal - on a personal level, did 9/11 increase the wealth of individuals in or close to the administration?

Financial - Country - Were the finances of the government and country helped or hurt by 9/11? Eg, the defense department, the economy in general, the strength of the dollar?

Personal - Did the Bush administration state personal goals at any time that they have achieved with the help of 9/11?

Agenda - this one reeks a bit of NWO-ism, but I'll include for the sake of completeness.. Did 9/11 advance a secret-society/NWO or other agenda?

Note, what I think quite a few people may struggle with is the fact that at times, the answer to some of these questions can be both yes, and no. For example, the ultimate result of 9/11 > Iraq war, has ended up with Bush and co at the lowest approval ratings ever, obviously a political low point. The Iraq war is obviously a huge mess, which I do remember being predicted quite some time ago - I remember reading analyses of the upcoming war which predicted fairly accurately the mess we're now in, the necessity for far more troops and money than originally budgeted. However, it's quite possible that either the consequences were ignored, thrown aside, because the people in charge believed in their own cause so much, or because the mess was part of their agenda - a protracted endless war..

Anyone care to respond with answers to the above questions?

One piece of evidence:


Bush approval ratings up to late '05 - just look at the graph, remember that much of the downslope is due to post-9/11 decisions like the Iraq War (making the whole WOT thing a mixed blessing) - but look at the pre-9/11 pattern AND post and we see he's a squanderer.
Without the huge - unprecedented - political capital windfall of 9/11, he'd of been broke bfore '04.

If not 9/11, something else very big would have been required to keep Bush's popularity afloat.

Also note the green line - "no opinion" started middling, dropped quickly to be replaced with polarized views of approval and disapproval before 9/11 and stayed near zero thereafter. Appears he's a divider not a uniter.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

So the hypothesis is, at minimum. 9/11 kept Bush in office for a second term?

Here's some more "evidence" though it's just an opinion article in the NY times, regarding privacy and wiretap laws..

external source

The article mentions that repeatedly Bush has stated that certain laws do not apply to him - as the Commander in Chief, whether it's laws on torture, spying, or various other things such as lengthy detention without trials for "terror suspects".

Again, benefit. Must be nice to be able to say "Oh, the law doesn't apply to me"..

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Inannamute]

Whilst we inevitably focus on Bush (let's face it, he's such an easily acquired target), the bottom line is America probably needed something of the magnitude of a war on terror.

Pre-9/11 the post-dot com bubble economy was in bad shape and getting worse. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, whilst costly, have galvinised American (rebuilding and re-arming) industry. Money has flowed in extraordinary volumes from the tax-payer to the corporate sector. Take a look at the Dow (1998-date) for proof of a correlation.


Pre-9/11, key policy-makers were aware of energy challenges. The Middle East is soon going to be producing more oil than all other regions combined (the 'crossover event') and the Caspian Basin needs to be further 'Westernised' in order to guarantee security of access to the region's energy assets.

Also, the petrodolar's hegemonic status was being challenged openly by Saddam and more recently by Ahmadinejad and Chavez. Right now, petrodollar recycling allows the US to run outrageous trade deficits (it basically gets its oil gratis). If oil-producing countries suddenly switched to the petroeuro, as Iran et al are threatening, then dollar-holding countries such as China will send dollars flooding back in to the US. At best, the US would like to prevent this from happening; at worst, it has to manage this transition.



[edit on 2-5-2007 by coughymachine]

Originally posted by Inannamute So, these 'mini-nukes'.. what sort of reaction are they utilizing? which elements? Anybody know?

Dear Inannamute:

Here’s a link to an easy-to-read-publication about fusion bombs and nuclear bombs in general. www.ieer.org...

Also, Chernobyl was NOT a nuclear explosion. It was a nuclear meltdown. Big difference. No fission explosion. The graphite coolant caught fire and the entire facility simply overheated. When the metal casings/containers housing the reactor system couldn’t take the pressure anymore (from the thermal expansion forces) they blew up and radioactive materials were spewn in the lower atmosphere where winds then carried them across Europe.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by coughymachine
Whilst we inevitably focus on Bush (let's face it, he's such an easily acquired target), the bottom line is America probably needed something of the magnitude of a war on terror.

Depends on what you mean by "America" and "need." Yes, the next step from showing it benefited Bush is that it benefitted the admin, the people in it, their pre-existing agenda, their allies' and cohorts' agendas. The opportunity of ages.

And if they HAD seen this coming, WOULD they have stopped it?
There's no way og knowing for sure, but c,mon, Be honest here. 3,000 lives for the New American Century. It could have been gotten other ways, but 9/11 did it so well.

Pre-9/11 the post-dot com bubble economy was in bad shape and getting worse. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, whilst costly, have galvinised American (rebuilding and re-arming) industry. Money has flowed in extraordinary volumes from the tax-payer to the corporate sector. Take a look at the Dow (1998-date) for proof of a correlation.

Costly wars look bad - they drain the treasury! But look at where the money is drined TO (private companies!) and think for a moment about who the leaders of this country work for.


Pre-9/11, key policy-makers were aware of energy challenges. The Middle East is soon going to be producing more oil than all other regions combined (the 'crossover event') and the Caspian Basin needs to be further 'Westernised' in order to guarantee security of access to the region's energy assets.

Also, the petrodolar's hegemonic status was being challenged openly by Saddam and more recently by Ahmadinejad and Chavez. Right now, petrodollar recycling allows the US to run outrageous trade deficits (it basically gets its oil gratis). If oil-producing countries suddenly switched to the petroeuro, as Iran et al are threatening, then dollar-holding countries such as China will send dollars flooding back in to the US. At best, the US would like to prevent this from happening; at worst, it has to manage this transition.


And what better place to manage the crossover than from than a position of "American Global Leadership?" This was ensured by the fact that we are fighting civilization's fight against the Muslim menace, leadership garnered when al Qaeda attacked the US. And who in the US gets to lead the leading edge? Look at where the hammer fell on 9/11 - world trade and the military. These are the "freedoms" the terrorists attacked - freedom to run the world - and we were to rise and defend freedom. How friggin' convenient.

So what debunkers want to get on here and claim 9/11's given Bush and his elitte cronies nothing but headaches?

Originally posted by Inannamute
Thanks for the response mate, I thought my rationality had ended up being too boring for most of the posters around here

.

Apparently so, but not all.

Did the Bush administration benefit. Hmm.

Political power and standpoints are hard things to measure in a case like this, because obviously we have no way of knowing what opinions of Bush & Co. would have been without 9/11 and the Iraq war

Given what's filled the gaps we have, it wouldn't be good. But power abhors a vacuum, so even without 9/11 they'd've found other ways to stay afloat. That's parallele universe land tho...

- would he have made it through a second term, for example? I do remember that a significant part of the campaigning around 2004 was centered around the idea of Bush as "Commander in chief, warleader!" and the idea that you should not change your leader in times of war.

Since '01 that's been his thing. His only good thin, in most peoples' eyes. Stole an election and handed California to Enron, actued stupid and smug, deregulated and gutted environmental laws, pushed faith-based stuff, etc - But damnit him and rudy got us thru 9/11 and we'll never forget that!
Again how convenient Osama handed Bush this trump card and all our defenses couldn't prevent its delivery.

Let's look at this from a list of what he possibly could have had to gain, what areas.

Pretty much yes down the list. No tedium needed of citing everything and it's not prefect. Some friends may have had their bad days, some went to jail, etc. but all in all I think the pattern of benefit is fairly clear.

Note, what I think quite a few people may struggle with is the fact that at times, the answer to some of these questions can be both yes, and no. For example, the ultimate result of 9/11 > Iraq war, has ended up with Bush and co at the lowest approval ratings ever, obviously a political low point. The Iraq war is obviously a huge mess, which I do remember being predicted quite some time ago - I remember reading analyses of the upcoming war which predicted fairly accurately the mess we're now in, the necessity for far more troops and money than originally budgeted. However, it's quite possible that either the consequences were ignored, thrown aside, because the people in charge believed in their own cause so much, or because the mess was part of their agenda - a protracted endless war..

Excellently put. This is more complex than direct and simple benefit for Bush and his closest. It's also about things that look less beneficial -the protracted war (and further decades of the "Long War" or "WWIV") is costly in terms of money and Bush's popularity - but that spending goes TO wealthy elites, and Bush can only finish this term anyway. His pol. career is therefore expendable and believe me they'll spend it up and leave him in '08 with not a point to spare.

Any rebuttals? Or can we chalk up US elite benefits from 9/11 as evident?

I'll see what I can do to play devil's advocate, and debunk.

(1) Insurance payouts - large, extreme, going to both victims, airlines, and owners of buildings. Huge cost to the corporate establishment, powerful entities that may not like large losses, and thus cost the administration some corporate support.

(2) public opinion.. admittedly right after 9/11 public opinion was high, but the cost to the administration in terms of political capital spent in order to protect the country was high - Bush essentially became a sacrificial lamb in the pursuit of US security..

Hmm
Interestingly, when I'm trying to debunk the benefits to the administration, about the only logical course of action is to assume NWO-ish higher purposes.. as in, Bush and his administration lose out individually, but in pursuit of larger goals. Financially, there is no negative impact upon them that I can see, politically, the negative impact is based not on 9/11 itself, but on their actions since then; 9/11 was a positive political moment, in terms of opinion..

The only true negative impact that 9/11 could have on the current administration would be if the "truth" movement became far more widely known, and the actual truth behind the attacks was revealed, implicating them criminally culpable.

For sure the elite have benefited but I would just like to clarify my earlier rambling.

Without 9/11 (or some other catalyzing event... know what I mean?), America would either be in deep trouble or else facing it. Yes, Bush and Co are at the helm, and yes, these good ol' oil/Carlyle Group boys (including our friends in the Middle East) are reaping the rewards, but had they not done something, America might well be bankrupt.

If my understanding of the way petrodollar recycling works is anywhere near right, any precipitous flow of dollars back into the US would first kill the American economy and ultimately send the world's economy into a spin.

In simple terms (please correct me if I'm wrong someone), having agreed with OPEC countries that oil will be sold in dollars, all oil-purchasing nations must hold dollar reserves. Further, since the oil-producing nations will earn more from oil sales than they can invest in their own economy, they return their dollar earning to the US in the form of US debt instruments or reserves. In that context, imagine the following:

Japan sells a product to the US for $1. Japan then buys oil from Saudi Arabia for $1. Saudi Arabia buys US debt for $1. The US now has its $1 back and is only required to pay the cost of 'creating' dollars and servicing its debt to the Saudis, i.e. just a few cents in the dollar. The US can now go and buy $1 of oil for practically nothing.

Thus the US runs an enormous trade deficit. Imagine then if oil pricing suddenly switched to euros overnight.

This isn't about Bush so much as America's economic survival.

I'd like to correct Wizard in the Woods.

You are incorrect on the physics of the explosion at Chernobyl.

They had performed an ill-advised low-power run of the reactor. The RBMK-1000 series reactor is NOT PERMITTED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to run at les than 70% of total output power. The only option is to shut it down (a 3 day process).

What happened was they wanted to take the primary cooling circuit out for maintenance, and to speed the job up, instead of shutting it down completely, they slowly reduced its power output. This initially required that the rods be inserted. After they got it down to around 40%, they found that in order to prevent the reactor from shutting down completely, as the power reduced further to around 30%, they were actually REMOVING the rods. The rods were partially inserted whilst it ran in this unstably low power state.

Everything was fine until the moment they started to increase the reactor power. Because they'd balanced the reaction at an unstable point, they found that even after they had COMPLETELY removed the rods, that the reactor wouldn't increase in power. The reactor was primed for an explosion.

This phenomena was known about, but no-one had communicated this to the staff operting the reactor that night.

So....... the primary circuit was out for maintenance. Because they'd taken the extremely dangerous shortcut of running the reactor in a very low power state, with the rods completely removed, they were asking for a problem. Cue an auxiliary cooling system failure. The reactor was now effectively running without coolant. The coolant acted as a moderator, as well as the rods, and the reactor was effectively over-moderated. The rise in temperatures in the auxiliary system resulted in pockets of gas occurring in the coolant, which served to reduce the level of moderation, so the reaction increased, causing more coolant to boil... you get the idea...

The temps started to rise, and they thought they would be OK, but they weren't. They tried very quickly to get the primary circuit back up, but it wasn't to be. They HAD to initiate an emergency shutdown, and this exposed the flaw. The second the graphite rods entered the reactor core, they triggered a surge in neutrons. This surge resulted in an increase of output power in the reactor of approximately 2000%. It exploded.

It was indeed a nuclear explosion that sent radiation into the atmosphere, but once it had actually blown up, the surge had already subsided, and the rods had continued to wind in until they hit part of the damaged reactor. The rods would no longer wind in, and left the rest of the reactor in an open, running state. They had to manually pour liquid boron into what was left of the core to contain the reaction. This is why the fuel melted and created the mass on the floors below the reactor building.

Because the fuel had melted, it was pooling together, and it was this they were concerned about, as there was still sufficient fissile material left to potentially react and explode a second time. Fortunately this did not occur. The other problem was the cooling water was stored in the floors below the reactor. If the mass of fuel had reached this water, it would have been instantly turned to super-heated steam, and this would have released more radiation than the initial explosion. Both are EXTREMELY bad scenarios.

In the subsequent years after the explosion and the numerous investigations into the accident, they determined that only 4% of the total reactor core was released into the atmosphere. 96% is still inside Reactor Building 4.

If 4% can do all the damage it has done, think very carefully about what the remaining 96% is capable of.

This is why I do not buy the nuke theory at all, regardless of how advanced the technology is theoretically. Ground Zero would have killed thousands more by now, and there would be a large spike in birth deformities.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I'd like to correct Wizard in the Woods.

You are incorrect on the physics of the explosion at Chernobyl.

Dear mirageofdeceit:

Niet dobra. Looks like we’ve got a battle of the ‘titans’ going on here. I’m not always right, but this time I am.

Chernobyl was not, was never a nuclear explosion. It was a chemical explosion primarily caused by hot steam expanding. Yes, the energy source generating the heat was uranium rods and a fission reaction, but a gradual one, not an explosive one. Which is why, by the way, as be both agree 96% of the nuclear fuel (uranium rods) is still there buried under the ‘sarcophagus’. Had that ‘blown up’ parts of Kiev would have been wiped out. Partial nuclear explosions, as in say the 4% you claim went off, are not possible. It's all or nothing.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 5/2/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by Inannamute

What I propose, therefore, is that in this thread, you may air any theory you like - with a couple of conditions. That theory must be 100% supported by fact - data showing similar events, reasonable scientific hypothesis, evidentiary chains. This goes for truthers and debunkers both, you must support your claims with solid evidence. Please, no use of sensationalist language or ridicule. Every hypothesis here will, I propose, be treated with respect and skepticism, whichever version of the 9/11 truth concept you adhere to.

Not to be rude but, this is sounding like dictatorship of science...

Not everyone perceives reality in a scientific manner, you can't just tell everyone to either speak with your restrictions or not speak at all....

No offense intended, just what i think.


[edit on 2-5-2007 by selfless]

Dear selfless:

Dictatorship is always bad. Nothing is written in stone. Sorry if I came across too strong.

There are many aspects of 9-11, political ones, philosophical ones, economic ones and also scientific ones. Everything should be open to discussion. I’m not trying to insult anyone. Really, I’m not.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear selfless:

Dictatorship is always bad. Nothing is written in stone. Sorry if I came across too strong.

There are many aspects of 9-11, political ones, philosophical ones, economic ones and also scientific ones. Everything should be open to discussion. I’m not trying to insult anyone. Really, I’m not.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

A misunderstanding.
I was talking to inannamute.
Sorry if that wasn't clear. :0

PS: Inannamute, my intentions are not to thick you off, i appreciate your efforts in the 911 forum.

I was just saying my opinion on trying to control the ways people utilizes to participate in a thread, it usually doesn't end well.

Sure you can ask them to stay with in the topic, but you can't dictate in which method people uses to address the topic of your thread :0


[edit on 2-5-2007 by selfless]

I know I addressed my original post to you but this isn't personal.

I'll re-iterate:

They HAD to initiate an emergency shutdown, and this exposed the flaw. The second the graphite rods entered the reactor core, they triggered a surge in neutrons. This surge resulted in an increase of output power in the reactor of approximately 2000%. It exploded.

www.answers.com...

In addition to a sudden power surge, a nuclear explosion requires sufficient force to hold the reacting nuclear components together for a short but necessary time. This is achieved in a nuclear fission weapon by surrounding the core with a carefully engineered symmetrical inward-facing conventional explosion. This element is not present in nuclear reactors. Lacking such explosive compression to hold the vaporized core components together, the components fly apart as in this accident; the reaction ends, resulting in a steam explosion and a badly damaged reactor core, but not the type of explosion from a nuclear weapon.

I made the thread because I was tired of seeing the same off-track discussions in every thread, frequently unsupported - far too many people parroting what they have read elsewhere without trying to think for themselves..

I think every theory proposed for what happened on 9/11 should be able to stand up to all evidence - that's the main reasoning behind believing the official story isn't right, anyway, isn't it? That the official theory tends to ignore possibilities and evidence, in favor of a "party line" kind of approach.. It's too tempting for truthers to fall into the same trap, to ignore things that do not fit the theories..

If we can discard the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Okay - nini-nukes: I say dismiss out of hand, Inannamute doen't protest, Wizard drops in a pont but does not protest, MoD same (side-track but for those who can scan and skip the thread still works):
We have not disproven it but chosen to ignore it here becuase it hardly seems worth debunking and is covered well-enough elsewhere.

Bush admin/ US elite benefits from 9/11 are evident to Inannamute, Coughymachine, and myself, all reasonably intelligent folk. Wars, profits, power, popularity, etc...

SO We can see the circ. ev. of WHY they might've allowed or engineered the attacks for their BENEFIT is now clear, while one of the "fringier" theories of HOW is outta the picture for now, if ultimately undecided. We still haven't proven (or disproven) complicity or inside job, but we're narrowing down the possibilities.

What next?