Do You Want 9/11 To Become Accepted Like The JFK Assassination?

YouCrazyDiamond said:
(:) Thank you for your patience. I was in a bit of a mood last night.)

In the middle of this page, I believe:

http://www.911blogger.com/2006_06_01_911blog_archive.html

Personally, I find it to be damn compelling evidence. It is, I believe, the proverbial smoking gun.

Yeah, people will want to bitch and squabble over chain of custody of this evidence, but come on. It was the government that had (and still has) the responsibility of addressing these same very basic (thirteen) points, but chose instead to “scrub” the crime scene and continues to be noncompliant in turning over the physical evidence for examination. That combination of criminal actions on the part of the government and rediscovery of meaningful physical evidence by the people, along with a much, much more plausible explanation of what took place on 9/11 is quite powerful, IMHO.

If public awareness is raised about these salient points (and more), then the government may find itself facing a very unhappy power: the people. (I’m not totally sure how the “psychology” of all this will ultimately play out across millions of people, though. I think that is where we come in with regard to how the activism is conducted.)

And let’s take it a step further with regard to investigation of the physical evidence. Even if the government runs tests on the some of the evidence it is illegitimately withholding, those results are already quite suspect, given that they have destroyed their credibility with those ridiculously “unscientific” FEMA and NIST reports. (NIST had better be really, really careful what they say about building 7, but so far their actions of non-transparency indicate they are likely to continue "lying.") What physical evidence might remain needs to be sent out for testing in many labs, etc. and the body of people that directs this process should be carefully scrutinized, etc. – certainly none of these NIST and FEMA people should be allowed to participate at all.

Well, as you point out, there will always be that gap between indictment and prosecution.

Fast forwarding past the investigation phase: where might we expect this “case” to be heard? The civil courts are blocking it and congress is not doing as they are required, which is to allow and perhaps participate in a transparent and honest investigation. Obviously the depths of corruption in congress make it rather difficult to know who to trust; congress has pretty much destroyed its credibility with the people. (Aren’t their poll numbers even lower than the executive branch? This leads me to the conclusion that the government finds itself in a position where it might want to appoint a suitable proxy and stand down along with detention of the usual suspects until this whole "affair" is resolved, no? Perhaps the "military" branches of the government could agree to let the secret service handle this transition would be my suggestion to these people at the moment, but again, I don't really know who to trust anymore.)

I’m seeing that public awareness is the best crop that we can cultivate at the moment.

And the answer is no, I don’t want this to end up “accepted” like the JFK assass.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, everything is fine - no need to apologize:)

Now, let's see... The links on the page you bring up are clickable - could you tell me which precise articles you want me to read (there's just quite a few of them there).

As for the governmenta lcrisis that might ensue - yes, any direct evidence implicating the US gvernment in 9/11 would be the biggest crisis in the history of this country. It is just that I have yet to see that evidence.
 
Yeah, I know there are lots of clickable links, but I figure it can't be too hard to figure out which one I mean.

He appears to me to be going about the science in a very methodical manner, which is to say that I doubt he is committing the same error as Ponds and Fleischman.

[size=-1][/size]
 
I mean these tests and the qualitative interpretation of the results are more or less trivial in the world of physics and chemistry.
 
And that crap published by FEMA and NIST would not get published in any credible, front-line, peer reviewed journals read by “real” scientists from many disciplines; e.g., Science and Nature come to mind.

Even if it did get published in such a journal, I’d hope that “real” scientists would at that point go ballistic, because then it would finally be put right in their face and they would perhaps find it more difficult to look away from the truth anymore.

(Perhaps you have to understand that when a “real” scientist reads a report, we rip it apart from limb to limb and put it back together. When it does not go back together properly, we get more than a little suspicious and begin looking for a better model that describes the results.)

That crap put forward by FEMA and NIST is some serious junk science. They ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. And judging by all the disclaimers, etc. in the beginning of those reports, they are.
 
(Perhaps you have to understand that when a “real” scientist reads a report, we rip it apart from limb to limb and put it back together. When it does not go back together properly, we get more than a little suspicious and begin looking for a better model that describes the results.)
Click to expand...

Edit to change "results" to "observations" in the above quote.

And in case you have not noticed, we humans are really quite good at determining with a high degree of precision the physics behind such processes as the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11.
 
Last edited:
YouCrazyDiamond said:
Yeah, I know there are lots of clickable links, but I figure it can't be too hard to figure out which one I mean.

He appears to me to be going about the science in a very methodical manner, which is to say that I doubt he is committing the same error as Ponds and Fleischman.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is not too hard but I failed.

More likely than not I know what you are talking about as I have spent quite some time studying 9/11 and writing about it (see my site).
 
Hey good site man... I must be the only one in here that doesn't have a seperate site. I will make this ok to myself with the justification that the world needs readers of sites too...
 
YouCrazyDiamond said:
so many links and so little time ...

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/dr-steven-jones-powerpoint.html
Click to expand...

Thanks, thsi was an excellent presentation. I never heard about that government-allied structural engineer trying to pressure Prof. Jones.

I ma familiar with the case Jones is making. He effectively proves that the official story about how the WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed is a sham. I have been saying things like that about the whole official story for quite some time.

But it does not contain any direct proof of the government's involvement.
 
Establishing that the events of 9/11 involved CD (along with the many, many other facts of what occurred on that day) and applying the investigative principle “means, motive, and opportunity,” I’d have to ask you, “Who else could it be?”

And, of course, it wasn’t just the government. It was the “government,” which includes many other nefarious characters, such as starvin' Marvn'.
 
YouCrazyDiamond said:
Establishing that the events of 9/11 involved CD (along with the many, many other facts of what occurred on that day) and applying the investigative principle “means, motive, and opportunity,” I’d have to ask you, “Who else could it be?”

And, of course, it wasn’t just the government. It was the “government,” which includes many other nefarious characters, such as starvin' Marvn'.
Click to expand...

The "means, motive, opportunity" approach has its fauls. Sometimes all that is required is "opportunity" - in other words, completely irrational crimes do happen, and not so infrequently.

As for "who else" - I could give you a whole list of potenital culprits: Al Qaeda or other Muslim radicals (an irrational show of force), Israel (in order to frame such radicals), the Chinese (they benefit from the US being entangled in a "long war") and many others. I am not saying that I favor any of those hypothesis - this is just to illustrate that the list of potenital culprits is a long one and you should not limit your search to just one culprit.

What I find most damning is that whoever the culprit is there is hardly any doubt to the fact that the US government went to incredible lengths to cover for them. But that in itself does not provide complete proof of the US government's participation in the events themselves.
 
borepstein said:
As for "who else" - I could give you a whole list of potenital culprits: Al Qaeda or other Muslim radicals (an irrational show of force), Israel (in order to frame such radicals), the Chinese (they benefit from the US being entangled in a "long war") and many others. I am not saying that I favor any of those hypothesis - this is just to illustrate that the list of potenital culprits is a long one and you should not limit your search to just one culprit.

What I find most damning is that whoever the culprit is there is hardly any doubt to the fact that the US government went to incredible lengths to cover for them. But that in itself does not provide complete proof of the US government's participation in the events themselves.
Click to expand...
What would constitute “complete” proof for you?

I’m not too concerned at the moment about who else might be involved, as the internally placed criminals are the most menacing aspect of this whole situation. These people are, after all, in control of the most powerful military on the planet … at least for the moment.

But really, who would “they” be conducting such a cover-up for? Wouldn’t it be in “their” best interests to expose the guilty party and take it from there? It certainly can not be some nonsense of creating a distraction so that the “real” enemy does not suspect they are in the cross-hairs; most of our resources and attention are directed at the current events in and around Iraq and Afghanistan (along with evading Congress, subverting various government institutions and political heritage, spying on us, and more, I’m sure).

Furthermore, even if I were to entertain the idea that various “people” in our society are only involved in a cover-up, I’d have to point out that accessory after the fact in this case will likely carry the same level of punishment as would direct operational involvement in carrying out the crimes. But I’ve thoughtfully dismissed that idea based on the mountains of evidence compiled to date.

Nor, can it effectively be reasoned that “they” were acting in my best interests. That is generally just a pretext for the “most horrid enormities” that all too often are soon to follow. What I’ve “observed” first hand for the last few decades resonates quite strongly with the wisdom expressed by George Washington in his farewell address about how this takes place. (Today, some of us are referring to this situation as a nightmare, and the struggle is to help others realize this is the case so that we can work together to wake up already.)

And how on earth (short of having transporter technology) can anybody else get into the WTC buildings to precisely place so many demolition devices? (Considering that these buildings were known to be targets for horrid acts, the security was reasonably expected to be better looked after than in most buildings, etc. Do you have any idea what security procedures look and feel like in such a place? They are fairly thorough, checking and tracking most everything that comes into the building, etc.)

Along with all the other mountains of facts, the rather precise placement of the three Bush brothers in 2000-2001 is extremely compelling “evidence,” IMHO. These types of inferences based on circumstantial evidence do in fact carry a great deal of weight when deducing the most probable “story” of what happened. (The issue, as far as I can tell, is not whether or not “they” are guilty, because it is too obvious that they are; it is a matter of how to get the general population to see that this is so.)

As far as I’m concerned, I have the real enemy in the cross-hairs, and they should know in no uncertain terms that I’m coming to get them. Who am I? I’m the people, ultimately an even greater power then “they” are.
 
YouCrazyDiamond said:
What would constitute “complete” proof for you?

I’m not too concerned at the moment about who else might be involved, as the internally placed criminals are the most menacing aspect of this whole situation. These people are, after all, in control of the most powerful military on the planet … at least for the moment.

But really, who would “they” be conducting such a cover-up for? Wouldn’t it be in “their” best interests to expose the guilty party and take it from there? It certainly can not be some nonsense of creating a distraction so that the “real” enemy does not suspect they are in the cross-hairs; most of our resources and attention are directed at the current events in and around Iraq and Afghanistan (along with evading Congress, subverting various government institutions and political heritage, spying on us, and more, I’m sure).

Furthermore, even if I were to entertain the idea that various “people” in our society are only involved in a cover-up, I’d have to point out that accessory after the fact in this case will likely carry the same level of punishment as would direct operational involvement in carrying out the crimes. But I’ve thoughtfully dismissed that idea based on the mountains of evidence compiled to date.

Nor, can it effectively be reasoned that “they” were acting in my best interests. That is generally just a pretext for the “most horrid enormities” that all too often are soon to follow. What I’ve “observed” first hand for the last few decades resonates quite strongly with the wisdom expressed by George Washington in his farewell address about how this takes place. (Today, some of us are referring to this situation as a nightmare, and the struggle is to help others realize this is the case so that we can work together to wake up already.)

And how on earth (short of having transporter technology) can anybody else get into the WTC buildings to precisely place so many demolition devices? (Considering that these buildings were known to be targets for horrid acts, the security was reasonably expected to be better looked after than in most buildings, etc. Do you have any idea what security procedures look and feel like in such a place? They are fairly thorough, checking and tracking most everything that comes into the building, etc.)

Along with all the other mountains of facts, the rather precise placement of the three Bush brothers in 2000-2001 is extremely compelling “evidence,” IMHO. These types of inferences based on circumstantial evidence do in fact carry a great deal of weight when deducing the most probable “story” of what happened. (The issue, as far as I can tell, is not whether or not “they” are guilty, because it is too obvious that they are; it is a matter of how to get the general population to see that this is so.)

As far as I’m concerned, I have the real enemy in the cross-hairs, and they should know in no uncertain terms that I’m coming to get them. Who am I? I’m the people, ultimately an even greater power then “they” are.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, I should have said "direct proof" as opposed to "complete proof".

Yes, there is no direct evidence t the fact that the US government participated in those attacks.

Circumstantial evidence is stong, as I have already stated. You are right to say that the coverup is a damning piece of evidence; you are incorrect in saying that the WTC security could not have been compromised by a third party. yes, I have an idea as to what kind of procedures they had; I also know that no procedure is 100% efficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top