Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Login or register to post comments Last Post 88590 reads   605 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 605 total)
  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 04:54pm

    #31
    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 5148

    count placeholder

    Extraordinary Claims…

Darbs, well in the sense that I was looking for analysis and data rather than assertions and claims, I confess to not feeling very 'helped' right now.   At this point it would seem that conflicting belief systems are preventing progress here, but let's give this go nonetheless.

I'll begin where you ended:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and unless there is something else, I’m not seeing it.

Indeed, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence so we agree on that.  However, given that exactly zero steel framed class 1A buildings have ever collapsed due to fire before in history or after 9/11/01 I would submit to you that the official story is the extraordinary 'explanation' that requires extraordinary proof.

So far the investigatory lapses and lack of scientific rigor (see 'missing shear bolts' as prime example) fall far short of extraordinary, at least in the good way.

Next: 

But now we get to the substance of this claim, that apparently, if any component of the collapse shows free fall velocities than we have a conspiracy? Is that your claim? Because it appears that is what you and the conspiracy theorists are claiming.

What I am claiming, as a scientist and as a logical person addicted to common sense, is that free fall indicates no resistance.  No resistance means the steel members below the free fall section were providing no resistance.  That is the claim, and it is not a 'conspiracy claim' as you seem intent on characterizing it, but a simple logical statement.

Next:

Intermittent free fall due to a buckling failure is entirely within the realm of physics and the presence of a buckling failure is quite common, perhaps even dominant, in structural failures.

Excellent.  That's a strong assertion that seems steeped in experience.  Now we can get to some data!

 Unfortunately after some mildly extensive Googling I could surface exactly zero examples of a modern steel frame building failing due to buckling, fire induced or otherwise.

I did find this top ten building failure list, but none of these really apply and, significantly, the list leaves off WTC 7 specifically, so I don't think it's a very definitive list.  Can you please provide better examples for study?  Let's get some other examples we can wrap our minds around to compare to the WTC hypothesis as put forth by NIST.

Next you made another strong assertion, but one that is completely in  error:

Let’s be clear, the claim using a time scaled video, that IF a building in a total accounting, start to finish, shows free fall collapse for the entire event, then yes, this is indicative of a building that was detonated.

Timing wise, the further away we get from an idealized free fall event indicates that energy is being used to slow that collapse, which is not what happens when a building is detonated, characterized by instantaneous (and continuous) loss all of its support. This is substantially different from a buckling failure, which may show periods of free fall until other load bearing members come into play.

Building demolitions happen lots of different ways, but the instantaneous and complete removal of all supports leading to a start to finish free fall experience is the rare form.

This video compilation of controlled demolitions reveals as much, and is kind of fascinating to watch.

Sometimes the technique of complete support removal is used, but far more often there is partial removal followed by the use of potential energy to complete the job.  Which only makes sense…why waste perfectly good explosives when you have so much potential energy at your disposal?

While I have not performed the frame by frame analysis of these or other demolition videos, by eye it's pretty apparent that many of them will have an initial period shuddering/collapse, a free fall period and then a final slower period as the debris pile and remaining structural integrity work themselves out as a slower rate of final collapse.

Yes, I have a bad habit of trusting my eyes.

But your final claim cannot be made given the actual practices of controlled demolition:

Frankly, the vast discrepancy between the free fall equation I posted earlier and the actual measured time duration is so large as to render claims that this building was detonated to be suspect at first principles.

There's no discrepancy unless you are making the claim that the only form of controlled demolition likely to have been used would have been the type where all structural elements are removed simultaneously. Since that's not necessary, and nobody here is making that claim, especially as the building in question is larger in size and therefore a good candidate for the use of potential energy, can you please share with us why you chose to adopt that assumption?

So we are still left with the 2.25 seconds of free fall which I claim indicate the absence of all resistance which you claim could easily be the result of:

  • Fire which reduced the load bearing capabilities of supporting columns leading to
  • Buckling and progressive failure

To these I would simply note that out of all of the images we have available to us of WTC 7 none of them show anything more than a very limited series of fires in a couple of spots on a couple of floors.  

The mechanism you propose, then, would be something like this?

  • Some structural damage occurs on the face of WTC 7 that is towards the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers.
  • This same damage leads to fires that spread throughout critical areas
  • The beams in these critical areas suffer loss of structural integrity due to the effects of fire
  • At a critical point a major beam buckles and fails leading to the instantaneous buckling failure of all other beams over the entire building such that all the visible corners drop in concert and experience 2.25 seconds of free fall
  • No elements in the outer wall construction had enough structural integrity to offer any appreciable resistance which explains the lack of observations of exterior wall buckling, distortions, or less than free fall speeds.

Is that about right?

Again, this is an extraordinary claim simply because it has never happened before or since.

Rather less extraordinary would be to note that such collapses happen every time a building undergoes controlled demolition.  you know, Occam's razor and all that.

Finally:

Nowhere near enough “evidence” has been posted to support the conclusion that heat induced buckling failures cannot be entirely to blame for the collapse.

Well, we might have some evidence but NIST refused to conduct any tests for traces of explosives.  You might think, well why should they have? to which I would reply because it was the largest crime scene investigation in anybody's lifetime and it should have been done for the sake of completeness alone.

Heck I got tested for explosives the last time I flew.  It's a swipe and a readout.  Very simple. Not hard to do.  Should have been done simply to have been thorough.  Also the structural steel that allegedly failed should have been made available to outside review and investigators but it was not.  It was destroyed before anyone else could see it and over great protests by professional groups.

So given the complete lack of any historical examples to go upon, I end here by submitting back to you that the burden of extraordinary claims and proofs rests with the official position and narrative that a class 1A building suffered a progressive collapse due to fire and that we can both have a progressive collapse and free fall at the same time.

So I'll sit here with the simpler and more logical explanation until a stronger and better proof comes along.

 

  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 07:04pm

    #32

    Wildlife Tracker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2012

    Posts: 405

    count placeholder

    The first 9/11 was 12/7

My grandma always tell the story that her husband saw an old navy buddy in Boston who was a decent ranking officer at that time. He told my grandfather that he should re-enlist because "we are going to war with Japan.

This was a year or so before Pearl Harbor.

The navy officer told my grandfather that he would get a good rank if he re-enlisted and so my grandfather did. He was stationed on a destroyer that patrolled around Panama. 

The US military was literally recruiting and  training soldiers, and building the industrial capacity to compete with one of the most powerful navies (Japan) and at the same time the most powerful ground army (Germany) at the time. This was contrary to what the government and politicians were telling the populace. "The U.S. is going to be neutral yada yada"

All they needed was to gain the support of the population…

You don't think massing an entire fleet in neatly organized rows (aka sitting targets) and bringing the naval bases readiness to near zero despite the expanding threat of the Japanese is suspicious? You also don't think it is a little suspicious that the US navy didn't know a Japanese carrier group was in the proximity of Hawaii even though that were at the forefront of having the technology to know that?

Sounds about as dumb as a steel building collapsing from a office fire IMO.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4740-pearl-harbor-hawaii-was-surprised-fdr-was-not

  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 07:25pm

    #33

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 187

    count placeholder

    Makes Sense to Me, Chris

I'm open minded on this, and prepared to reach a tentative conclusion either way.   I'd actually be happier if the "official story" could be believed, since it's pretty disturbing if evidence supports the idea that government secrets and chicanery extends to the point of leveling skyscrapers in Manhatten and then lying to the public about what actually happened.  

On Sept. 11, 2001, I got up to trade markets early on the west coast, as I did every day at that time.  I saw my quotes data feed was messed up – little flickers here and there as though something was broken. After checking my computer and seeing all was well, I turned on the TV to financial news to see if there was a market data issue and was looking at the WTC buildings, one with smoke coming out.  I continued to watch, and saw both WTC buildings collapse in real time – the first in virtual silence for many seconds as the news anchor was apparently too stunned to talk about what was happening as the structure cascaded down.   I read a later analysis of why the buildings collapsed later due to their unusual girder support structure build outward like spokes, as I recall, from the central bank of elevators to the outer wall girder supports, and that the intense heat had softened the girders and caused them to bend enough to slip off their cross supports, starting the chain reaction collapse downward.  I don't remember the explanation in detail, but do remember it matched my visual experience enough to be believable based on what I know.

After watching the videos of the collapse of WTC7, hearing that the investigators didn't even look for traces of explosives, and seeing the huge free fall drop that started the collapse, it seems highly likely to me that it was brought down by a controlled demolition.  The story that an entire building that size would fall levelly multiple stories in free-fall due to a sudden, "natural", fire-induced collapse on lower floors that just happens to drop it flatly seems so unlikely to me as to be absurd, and is completely different than the main WTC collapses.  Is it possible?  It doesn't seem so to me, but maybe it is.  In any case, based on what I've seen, heard and read, the detonation seems a wildly more probable explanation than the official one.

 

  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 07:36pm

    #34
    James Knight

    James Knight

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 21 2009

    Posts: 63

    count placeholder

    Government agents

I believe it was Mr Snowden who recently revealed that the security services have agents that infiltrate websites to try to shut down talk about government conspiracies.

Is it possible that certain members here are government agents employed to do just that?

  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 10:53pm

    #35

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1992

    count placeholder

    Reasonable suspicion

I've followed the discussion here and have concluded the official story of WTC7 is highly suspicious and probably not true.  I suppose it's possible there was no hanky panky in bringing the building down intentionally, but the investigation leaves so much undone or done poorly that I don't see how anyone could confidently support or believe the official story. I look at the issue as a law enforcement officer, not a scientist or engineer, and have the following observations.

1.  The collapse of WTC7 by some other process besides a fire of the building contents is so shaky that a police officer would easily conclude there is reasonable suspicion something else happened.  This would give the officer the power to seize evidence, stop people against their will and investigate their actions, and so forth.

2.  If a police department or individual sworn officers had "handled" (actually mishandled and destroyed) crucial evidence in a crime of this magnitude heads would have rolled.  Officers would've been fired or received lengthy suspensions without pay for not protecting the crime scene and the physical evidence.  If ranking commanders or even a chief/commissioner was found to have participated in or ordered such shabby and inexcusable handling of the scene and the evidence they very likely would also have been fired or embarrassed into retiring/resigning.  As it was, most normal law enforcement investigative steps and procedures were disregarded on the say so of politicians.  Very fishy (not to mention scandalous in it's own right regardless of how the building came down).  I saw the same thing happen in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting: access prohibited, evidence (including the whole freaking building) destroyed, sealed or not collected, and politicians working together to suppress most details and evidence from ever seeing the light of day (CT State Police head and USAG Holder, for instance), and normal investigative procedures not followed.  That kind of thing CREATES the atmosphere for skepticism about what really happened even if the investigation has discovered and documented the truth.  On the contrary, in huge cases like this, law enforcement usually goes out of its way to be as thorough and as transparent as humanly possible just so people will be satisfied the truth has been discovered.  I've seen plenty of local cover-ups of petty screw ups and corruption: this is what they look like.  

3. I'd be willing to bet my left arm that there are NYC police officers who know a lot more about this than has ever been made public.  I imagine they've died of mysterious causes, known better than to say anything, or have kept what they know secret waiting for the right moment to reveal it (if it ever arrives).  I'd be willing to bet NYC bomb squad members or ATFE agents violated their orders and took samples for explosives residue on the sly.  That evidence could get them killed and I doubt it would have much effect in court because they would have to admit they were acting outside the scope of their orders and official duties and preserved the evidence personally and couldn't prove it remained pristine.

4. Because of the shabby "investigation" I seriously doubt anyone could ever be charged for demolishing the building, much less convicted.  That may drive the average person crazy, but I see guilty people get away with criminal acts all the time.  I've gotten nearly numb to it, and have learned to let it go and move on.  But I don't forget.  And I keep my eye out for the guilty person hoping someday to at least arrest and convict them for some new crime.  That's what I've decided to do about WTC7. I'm going to walk away extremely suspicious and will keep my eye out for whoever did it in case they do something else.

Tom

"Happy Hunger Games. And may the odds be ever in your favor."

 

  • Sun, May 18, 2014 - 04:13am

    #36

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    count placeholder

    The 72 definitions of Big T.

Fun to see how many you can score.

Site

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians

  • Sun, May 18, 2014 - 03:04pm

    #37
    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 5148

    count placeholder

    This is (very) important.

[quote=james_knight_chaucer]

I believe it was Mr Snowden who recently revealed that the security services have agents that infiltrate websites to try to shut down talk about government conspiracies.

Is it possible that certain members here are government agents employed to do just that?

[/quote]

Information is power and nothing is really left to chance anymore.  To control information is to control power in these times and so we must always know that there are people who are paid to insert, modify and redirect content.

Some of them work for the government, some for corporations and some for PR agencies.  They fire up and do their work in defense of client images, GMO foods, consumer brands, nation-states and the 9/11 story among other things.

They have a list of techniques that are now taught in classes that go by names such as forum sliding, consensus tracking, topic dilution, anger trolling, information collection, and gaining full control. 

Since I cannot know who is who I am always on guard for any or all of these techniques and put a quick stop to anything that fits the bill.  

For the record, here are the 25 rules of disinformation.  People are trained in and practice at these and over time I've identified most of them in operation both here and (mainly) on other sites.  We do a very good job of keeping such shenanigans to a minimum here, and that means keeping a short leash on any of these tactics:

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

You will see some or many of these tactics employed whenever a 'controversial topic' comes out.  Many of you have already become familiar with many of these tactics in the Climate Change topic, both here at PP and elsewhere.  There are paid operatives, presumably employed by some outfit funded by the Koch brothers for example, whose job it is to troll the web and ply the dark arts of disinformation.

If this is a shocking idea to any of you, it really shouldn't be, it's just how the world works now, and really it is just an extension into the web of how the world has always worked.

Of course some of these same tactics are going to emerge on a 9/11 thread like the one above, as this is one of the more dangerous topics out there today for the simple reason that there is so much riding on the maintenance of the official story.  Trillions upon trillions and massive redirections of domestic and foreign policy to be imprecise.  

And this is why, above, you will see me continually bringing the conversation away from UFOs, motive, and the seeming impossibility of keeping 'such a large secret' and back to the 2.25 seconds of free fall. That is the data, it is factual and if we can simply remain focused on the facts then we might get somewhere.

Or possibly not.  The topic is very much dangerous territory for a lot of reasons, and the only reason I am willing to explore it is because the implications of an official false narrative have a lot of bearing on how we might anticipate the future unfolding.

Will we as a people wake up in time and look the uncomfortable truths square in the face, or will we continue to fib to ourselves to maintain an illusion?  The former says we have a chance at a reasonable group outcome, the latter suggests that one should do as much individual preparation as possible.

If it were not important, I would not touch the topic at all because the risks are just too large, personally, for my family, for this site, and for anybody we might not end up reaching as a result.

But truth is important, especially when it is most inconvenient.  

At any rate, you might want to print out the 25 disinformation rules so that you can begin to spot them in practice as you read comments around the web.  It can become a hobby, like bird watching.  

  • Sun, May 18, 2014 - 04:30pm

    #38

    Wildlife Tracker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2012

    Posts: 405

    count placeholder

    I think I spotted one of

I think I spotted one of those "hit and run" creatures the other day. Very rare this time of year…

 

Although, I do think there are a lot of real opinionated humans out there that will identify with those tactics.  Growing up with the internet, I recognize that people actually behave that way on the web about everything where an opinion can be established. I remember seeing people behave that way on Napster forums or the chats in video games, so I'm skeptical about the scale that people think this is occurring.

Controversial websites like this one with figures like yourself Chris, I could see how that might attract negative attention from certain groups. It could also attract real life hard-headed individuals not affiliated with anything. 

  • Sun, May 18, 2014 - 05:08pm

    #39
    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 5148

    count placeholder

    I can’t know who is who…

[quote=Wildlife Tracker]

Controversial websites like this one with figures like yourself Chris, I could see how that might attract negative attention from certain groups. It could also attract real life hard-headed individuals not affiliated with anything. 

[/quote]

I am sure you are right.  Some people are just innocently using divisive argument tactics, having learned from somewhere somehow that the 'art' of being hardheaded, as you put it, is a reasonable way to express oneself when engaging others.

And some are being this way on purpose, and a subset of those are doing it professionally.

I cannot know who is who, but at the end of the day, whether it was innocent or paid, unconstructive argumentation is not what we're aiming for here.

The world is in crisis  and rapidly getting worse…there really isn't time to be ineffective…so how do we become ever more effective?  How do we reach people when the basic facts run afoul of their entrenched belief systems?

In this regard, something like WTC 7 is just a microcosm of a much larger challenge.  If we cannot walk through that (to me) rather straightforward example without triggering various land mines, how do we begin to confront ocean acidification or the loss of insect populations?

This is for all the marbles, so getting it right is really very important to me.

  • Sun, May 18, 2014 - 05:53pm

    #40

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2333

    count placeholder

    Summarizing NIST more succinctly……

"There was no explosive demolition."

"Move along now."

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 605 total)

Login or Register to post comments