Changes in the last year

I enjoy leaves of absence too. Once the death threats start, I usually get tired of arguing here.

Mostly, the dialogue has recently been focusing on Building 7 with the occasional repeat of various over-argued points. A few months ago the thermite study came up, but it was dismissed and/or forgotten within a week.

There were a couple no-plane threads that cropped up, and even some dustification and pyroclastic believers making some noise.

So, it's been pretty much the same as it was last year, except that most of the truth movement people left and got replaced by new ones who bring up the same arguments that were brought up over 5 years ago. Not bickering. It's just the actual truth of it.

It's probably going to steer toward the Pentagon soon. I've already seen some discourse happening relating to the absence of videos, so we'll probably see an upcropping of threads over that, and then no-plane arguments.

Overall, no new news relating to 9/11. The new trade center got over 100 stories, though, and is costing Silverstein significantly more than he won in his settlement. I suppose that's something. Mostly, the news is that the useful links and images and videos are slowly disappearing due to websites closing down.

Can't really think of anything else aside from the general increase in disorderly conduct, but that's neither here nor there.

Originally posted by NWOwned
I've been out of the loop too on 9/11 though I do check the threads every so often.

But the other day I found something somewhat new by 'independent researcher' Richard D. Hall.

Hey man, thanks very much for an excellent post. This is exactly what I wanted to see. I've not been a fan of Simon Shack for some time now, but that's because I read cluesforum.

Did you know that they think literally every space flight is fake? That the Shuttle either doesn't exist or can't possibly fly? It's really crazy territory. No satellites, no LEO missions, no nothing.

Of course they're wrong, and as someone who enjoys watching satellite passes I find it particularly funny. I'm glad to see that you're keeping an open mind because it's really sad to see someone fall as far as claiming whole industries are fake.

The problem is that for every person who is able to see new evidence and change their minds, there are 10 people who will spam endlessly about how the Space Shuttle really doesn't exist!

Even if it doesn't change much, thanks again for an excellent post and for keeping an open mind. I hope you manage to find a complete theory you agree on.

Pskeyhacker is still asking about the distribution and weight of the concrete and steel on every level of the WTC

Nothing has changed.

We were able prove it was paint chips not thermite. Big surprise !

Click here to learn more about this warning.

The idea that anything other than jumbo jets slashed through steel and concrete is being systematically crucified, on conspiracy sites. Junior strelnikovs are lining up for medals, for their defense of the indefensible, and openly seeking positions of personal military power. A thousand times you can show crisp, multi angled views of a streaking ballistic object doing the deed, with a thousand identical responses: ignored.

Beams from the abomination have been airlifted to firehouses throughout the land, like some Ark of the Covenant that gets the job done, probably at great cost, all the way from china, one supposes. Debunking techniques that may not be humanly generated have been honed to perfection, and keyboards are white with powder and sneering condescendence. Evidently, there are machines in place to replace the frailties of the limits of any mind within an army of one, because the machines are unlikely to change their minds about following their programming, their orders, their commands.

A guy in Chicago is casting his legislative stones, statewide, to tax, register, burden, and otherwise ferret out dissidents who insist on keeping their guns, keeping them without strings attached. He may be able to act like it never happened, but that'll be a tough act to perform, because he did. The ripples from those stones were supposed to go from state to state, not confined to his little block, as mayor of a big city. Hence, I give you drones.

All this preparation does make the perps nervous about their embarrassment of riches, so a civil war is always on back burner, always. The music industry, and car commercials, seem to be looking for guitar riffs and bands that have a olde tymey civil war sound, and feel, and name. I hope we live to tell the tale. I hope we live to tell the tale.

reply to post by davidmann


actually there is some interesting things in the new 911 intercepted thread ......a vid by p4t....might be an interesting watch it you haven't already seen it,

other than that...the same 10 Oser keep the fight going and they are very stalwart in their defending the two reports that are actually shown to be full of holes but still quoting from them for some strange reason....

NIST and BAZANT

if it was a court case....if a report is deemed questionable....the report gets disregarded just as these two reports should be sent to the hoax bin anytime they are referred too.

Other than that the same old same old...and i hope you had a decent break from it all...and if someone does ask if your posting on 911.....just look them in the eye with pride....and say yes.

I was asked by anti terroist police one time if i was posting......and i said with pride yes...but they also asked me if i believe in Ufos and aliens......i look at them with pride....i said yes.....then i asked them....do you believe in god.

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by 4hero
'truth movement' is a fictional term, disinfo, you discredit yourself if you use that term.

I'm just gonna link you to what I said in another thread. It's not something I invented and I don't know any other term to use: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you believe there is some unified movement please point me in the direction of where one signs up for membership, i'd be curious to know if you can show where people sign up to this fictitious movement.

I'm just interested in any developments by 'independent researchers' or whatever other collective term you'd prefer.

I've been out of the loop too on 9/11 though I do check the threads every so often.

But the other day I found something somewhat new by 'independent researcher' Richard D. Hall.

It's sort of an update fix to his previous NBC "ball" video. In it he takes the clips of the second plane that show its trajectory over a few seconds, some 26 videos, and plots the movement against a known radar track and a 3d wireframe model he constructed of lower Manhattan.

What his analysis seems to indicate is that the 'plane' you see in the videos (all 26) is really there and all videos sync up in movement from every angle, even the amateur ones.

So, it's likely that the videos are not 'faked'.

This is in direct contrast to Simon Shack and September Clues which claims massive 'video fakery'.

This goes along with my own thinking in some of my previous posts, I think 'people saw planes' and that the videos are largely not manipulated. (Sound, however may be etc.)

When I was a kid I put together model planes and I even went so far as to put little motors in them to get the propellers spinning. I would rig up a string and fly them across my room. I never had a video camera but I could have filmed it, even outdoors against a clear blue sky with the string between two trees etc. Or think of the ufo hoax videos where some guy with a camera and a frisbee snaps a video or a pic and tries to pass it off as 'real'.

I mention these examples because above I say like 'the video evidence Hall shows seems to indicate that the videos aren't 'faked' and that the plane is really there', but is it?

When you fly a model plane or throw a frisbee and film it everyone gets the ruse and thinks it's cute. Obviously it's not a real plane or a giant mothership.

There was a story I read from Russia I think, about blow up tanks all out in a field. Industrial strength blow up LIFE SIZE balloon tanks. Impressive. On satellite photos (from really far away) looks like REAL tanks!

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

There was something in the sky on 9/11 that looked like a plane (second hit) but when that 'plane' hit the building it didn't really look like what many thought a plane hitting a building should look like.

Anyway...

It's hard to trust and get behind anyone with this 9/11 thing. But on my own I had issue with Simon Shack's work and this video analysis by Hall confirms what I suspected. That what was filmed was pretty much what was there, or should I say "apparent". And the plane on the second hit wasn't just simply a video effect overlay.

Surely that's a bit of progress?


Cheers

edit on 26-5-2012 by NWOwned because: spelling

Here's why that video (which I didn't watch) is false. The ball or orb passed east of tower 1 in the final seconds before the south tower's explosion. This is proven by its shadow and wnbc acknowledging that it went in between the towers. The official flight path has 175 flying south to north, not west to east. That plain and simply proves the orb is different not only in size and shape but follows an impossible path for any size plane.

Originally posted by cultureoftruth
Here's why that video (which I didn't watch) is false. The ball or orb passed east of tower 1 in the final seconds before the south tower's explosion. This is proven by its shadow and wnbc acknowledging that it went in between the towers. The official flight path has 175 flying south to north, not west to east. That plain and simply proves the orb is different not only in size and shape but follows an impossible path for any size plane.

If you have an issue with this post please start a thread about it. I'm trying to keep this thread entirely to do with what's changed in the year since I posted last. I figured we could share the latest releases and papers, but so far only a couple of people have contributed.

I'm looking through the IC911Studies NIST release now, lots of material there. Anyone looked through it and care to share?

Originally posted by cultureoftruth

Here's why that video (which I didn't watch) is false. The ball or orb passed east of tower 1 in the final seconds before the south tower's explosion. This is proven by its shadow and wnbc acknowledging that it went in between the towers. The official flight path has 175 flying south to north, not west to east. That plain and simply proves the orb is different not only in size and shape but follows an impossible path for any size plane.

Video I posted, the latest work of researcher Richard D. Hall:



Ok like, your response here has me a little confused. Are you saying that you haven't watched this video but claim nevertheless that it is false? You do realize that this is a new video and not really about the orb "ball" thingy that Hall was going on about 2 years ago right? You might have even figured that out for yourself had you begun to watch it etc.

Frankly I was going to be harder on you since I've not dealt with you before but then I started reading some of your other posts and so I'm gonna cut you some slack.

I looked at YOUR video links in another post, the one with the male and female hosts where the guy says like "now seen between the two towers..." and what it seems to me is that the gap between the towers in that shot is pretty indistinct and blurry and that what may appear as a shadow and movement between the two towers is just the split second crossing of the gap between the buildings which is commented on by the guy host.

For the host does not then say like "Hey that's strange, the thing went between the towers but the explosion was on the other side!" He doesn't say anything of the like or act surprised at all. Which indicates to me that his first statement of "now seen between the buildings..." was meant simply as he could see the object PASSING ACROSS the vertical gap of the towers but always knowing it was on the other side the whole time. You see what I'm saying or am I reading it wrong? Or are you reading it wrong?

At any rate, the video above, which you claim not to have watched, goes into detail of this strange angle attack of the south tower, I think it would be a good idea for you to check it out before claiming it is false.

People on the other thread are crying "Show me how it's possible!!" And I post a video here and you proudly claim to have not watched it? Is that right?

Do I have to hold everyone by the hand?

Come on people.


Cheers

reply to post by Darkwing01


Excuse me?

How was my post a personal attack?

Saying that someone doing a study has an alleged clear undisclosed conflict of interest is not a personal attack. It is a fact as much as 1+1=2.

Saying that a study fails to use the correct definition for the primary substance under consideration is not a personal attack. It is a fact.

Or was there something else that you had a problem with?

reply to post by Darkwing01

To be clear, "public figures" such as politicians and policy-makers with a connection to these issues/events are not considered to fall under these new guidelines. Their pre-existing public exposure places them in a position to anticipate scrutiny.

From your own T&C.

By publishing that report he has opened the door to questioning his past work, going to his credibility and/or impartiality on the matter.



The fact that the person in question was working in a ranking for the EPA at the time that the public record states the EPA was lying about the air-quality at the WTC site due to political interference is not ad hominem, as per the WikiPedia definition:

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

en.wikipedia.org...

Besides, I wasn't even making the allegation, just citing it.

As for the definition of thermite, well I am afraid the definition is the definition is the definition, you can't just make new ones up when it suits you:

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide that produces an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction known as a thermite reaction.

[emphasis mine]
en.wikipedia.org...

Calling a person who has ventured an expert opinion on something, and thus publicly claims expertise, on a rather enormous error such as this is not ad hominem by any stretch of the imagination.


I expect an apology and re-instatement of my comment, any moment now....

reply to post by Darkwing01


You're replying to your own posts. I have no idea who you expect an apology off or why you are polluting this thread with garbage.

Has any new thermite evidence come out in the last year? All i'm aware of is more evidence that shows it was not some ridiculous 'nanothermite/ate' mix but paint. Did Jones ever publish the independent tests he promised he would?

These are discussion points for this thread, not your desire to validate your own posting.

Originally posted by exponent
I've not been a fan of Simon Shack for some time now, but that's because I read cluesforum.

Did you know that they think literally every space flight is fake? That the Shuttle either doesn't exist or can't possibly fly? It's really crazy territory. No satellites, no LEO missions, no nothing.

There are many false anti-OS movement, that are meant to discredit some theories and mislead the people by mixing truth and lie. Simon Shack work is a kind of. He makes a lot of ridiculous debunkable statement in order to discredit both the idea that OS is a lie, and the no-plane theory particularly.

I agree with 4hero, all big Truth movements are controlled opposition. If you want to find something, must look outside of the mainstream.

There is no progress in the movement, most people have lost interest in the topic, just some new come from time to time and fight with the same debunkers and fake truthers, that "dwell" in the forum.

Originally posted by DonJuan
There are many false anti-OS movement, that are meant to discredit some theories and mislead the people by mixing truth and lie. Simon Shack work is a kind of. He makes a lot of ridiculous debunkable statement in order to discredit both the idea that OS is a lie, and the no-plane theory particularly.

I agree with 4hero, all big Truth movements are controlled opposition. If you want to find something, must look outside of the mainstream.

I have never seen a scrap of evidence indicating this. Are you saying that you must look outside of the mainstream once to find the truth movement, then outside of the mainstream 'truth movement' to find the 'real truthers'? Even with two levels of indirection, every group still accuses their opponents of being government plants.

There is no true group of 'independent researchers' which does not get accused by other 'independent researchers'. The idea of some group of people who are the only real truth-tellers is fallacious, it's in essence a 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

There is no progress in the movement, most people have lost interest in the topic, just some new come from time to time and fight with the same debunkers and fake truthers, that "dwell" in the forum.

No debunkers dwell there, Simon banned them all lol.

Originally posted by exponent
I have never seen a scrap of evidence indicating this. Are you saying that you must look outside of the mainstream once to find the truth movement, then outside of the mainstream 'truth movement' to find the 'real truthers'? Even with two levels of indirection, every group still accuses their opponents of being government plants.

Exactly, there are 2 levels of "waking up and opening your eyes"! You see, they realize that many people will have questions about the event, so someone must lead these people to the wrong direction. And as a matter of fact, the Truth movement is nowhere now.
The fact that this is the best way to hide the truth is the evidence itself.

Originally posted by exponent
There is no true group of 'independent researchers' which does not get accused by other 'independent researchers'. The idea of some group of people who are the only real truth-tellers is fallacious, it's in essence a 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

Yes, there is no well known group, just some individuals, and they also may make some mistakes. Usually their visibility is low and it is a good sign. People/groups with high visibility may be dangerous and cannot be independent.

No debunkers dwell there, Simon banned them all lol.

I meant this forum. Simon plays role as controlled opposition, countering the no-plane theory, and he does not need debunkers, because his theory can be crashed even by no-planers, but he needs his visitors to believe (and get disappointed later). He is the biggest seller of the "no-plane" theory and there are some individuals, that push it very actively everywhere.

reply to post by DonJuan


I'm sorry but I just can't put any credence in this whatsoever. It strikes me as a common psychological effect. You've decided that you don't trust the government and so you fallaciously distrust everything inherently. You then discover that there are truther theories that you find ridiculous, so you fallaciously assume malice. You then find that there are a few people who agree with you, and so you fallaciously select those as the 'true researchers'.

At every level you compound your error. However, I have to say in your case, you take your time to post and don't use direct insults or accusations, and so at least I would like to be thankful for that.

Having said that however, a nice attitude and polite style does not mean you are correct, there's no evidence to support even the first level of fallacious distrust.

reply to post by exponent

All i'm aware of is more evidence that shows it was not some ridiculous 'nanothermite/ate' mix but paint.

All that that study constitutes evidence for is that OS'ers haven't the foggiest idea what constitutes evidence for anything.

You PAID someone to produce a report. He produced it, and shockingly it had the outcome you wanted. He was not impartial and your "team" failed to disclose this, and so did he. Furthermore: His report failed to test key elements of the claim, instead using suppositions based on assumptions which were heavily biased toward the desired outcome, some of which were based on egregiously faulty definition of the primary substance under consideration.

It is for precisely this reason that the truth movement exists in the first place, and why you declare the impossibility of ever satisfying you with actual reasonable evidence by saying that you think this report is legitimate.

You don't believe it is thermite, we know that. We also know that you are super-duper skeptical of anything that might prove it is, to the point of methodological skepticism which is wholly inappropriate in a scientific setting (because NO amount of testing will satisfy you, and hence it is a waste of everyone's time to do so).

But now we ALSO know that you are super credulous of anything that might prove it is not thermite.

So all we have learned through this process is that OS'ers will believe anything that confirms their pre-existing prejudices, science be damned. But we knew this already.

So the study didn't really tell us anything after all, did it now?

reply to post by DonJuan

There are many false anti-OS movement

Isn't it far more likely that people are just varying degrees of wrong?

The truthers are wrong, the OS'ers are wrong. This is the only thing we can know for sure.

We proceed first by admitting this fact to ourselves and admit that there probably are no effective disinfo agents. The only real disinfo agent is yourself, whether you are an OS'er or a truther.

Until you can admit that to yourself you cannot hope to interface with the facts as they are rather than how would like them to be. If you think you know the "truth" (whatever that may be) then the only lying going is that of YOU to none other than YOURSELF.

One effective way (I find) of separating truth from fiction is to test the levels of self delusion required of supporters in the terms identified above. This is rather easy to do. It is what Popper identified as well as the fervent belief in proof of your position. When you see a group of people who believe their position has been proven, it is a pretty clear sign that they have deluded themselves into believing something that is probably not true.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
All that that study constitutes evidence for is that OS'ers haven't the foggiest idea what constitutes evidence for anything.

You PAID someone to produce a report. He produced it, and shockingly it had the outcome you wanted. He was not impartial and your "team" failed to disclose this, and so did he. Furthermore: His report failed to test key elements of the claim, instead using suppositions based on assumptions which were heavily biased toward the desired outcome, some of which were based on egregiously faulty definition of the primary substance under consideration.

I didn't pay anyone, and I love how carefully you're having to twist the words here, "key elements of the claim". No it tested whether it was thermite, it was not. Whether it's a particular brand of paint or not seems irrelevant to me, but of course any little excuse eh?

You don't believe it is thermite, we know that. We also know that you are super-duper skeptical of anything that might prove it is, to the point of methodological skepticism which is wholly inappropriate in a scientific setting (because NO amount of testing will satisfy you, and hence it is a waste of everyone's time to do so).

Did Jones ever publish the independent tests he claimed he was going to have done? Did he ever combust a chip in an inert atmosphere?

No, he abandoned you and he abandoned his research once it was clear that he was mistaken. You've been abandoned by a charlatan and defend him as if he had done anything but hurt the truth movement. I feel sorry for you.