But where did the Twin Towers go to so quickly?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby sunny » Thu May 15, 2008 6:17 pm

barracuda, that is my entire problem with "9/11 Truth".

A lot of good information has come out of it.

Like the JFK assassination, we now know the broad outlines of the conspiracy as well as many of the details.

But where do we go from here? Even if we could get past the media gate, "the people" or most of them, have been so innoculated against 9/11 conspiracy talk the best one could expect of them is :roll:

But do we stop being concerned about it just because the majority will not concern themselves? Do we stop studying, debating, agitating, or whatever else we might do?

Do we just drop it? Where does it go from here?
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu May 15, 2008 6:24 pm

1) The hoax of 9/11 is fueling the peramant oil war, torture, and elimination of the US Constitution. It matters quite alot in the minds of many Americans and will for decades.

2) The hoax is EASILY exposed unless you lose focus on the crime itself.

3) The top sections of both Twin Towers came down in around 10 seconds, about the same time as if they fell through thin air instead of through a battleship's worth of steel and concrete.

4) That's impossible unless the Twin Towers were blown up and all the evidence is there proving again that this is precisely what happened.

5) The more people that know this the more friction there will be on the 9/11-based war on torture plans.

6) So focus. Learn and tell.
It has both short- and long-term consequenses.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Searcher08 » Thu May 15, 2008 6:31 pm

sunny wrote:barracuda, that is my entire problem with "9/11 Truth".

A lot of good information has come out of it.

Like the JFK assassination, we now know the broad outlines of the conspiracy as well as many of the details.

But where do we go from here? Even if we could get past the media gate, "the people" or most of them, have been so innoculated against 9/11 conspiracy talk the best one could expect of them is :roll:

But do we stop being concerned about it just because the majority will not concern themselves? Do we stop studying, debating, agitating, or whatever else we might do?

Do we just drop it? Where does it go from here?


Why Emotional Memories Of Traumatic Life Events Are So Persistent

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080509152307.htm

ScienceDaily (May 11, 2008) — Emotional memories of traumatic life events such as accidents, war experiences or serious illnesses are stored in a particularly robust way by the brain. This renders effective treatment very difficult. Researchers at ETH Zurich and the University of Zurich have now successfully tracked down the molecular bases of these strong, very persistent memories.


The expression “post-traumatic stress disorder” is once again constantly on everyone’s lips in relation to those returning from the Iraq war or survivors of catastrophes such as the tsunami. This is not a new development, since it always occurs when people experience extreme situations. It is known that emotional memories of both a positive and a negative kind are stored by our brain in a particularly robust way.

Consequently they have a very large effect on our behaviour and, in the case of adverse memories, they can place considerable restrictions on the way we go about our lives. As a result, we avoid places, smells or objects that remind us of the traumatic experience, because they may trigger severe anxieties. Isabelle Mansuy, Professor of Cellular Neurobiology at ETH Zurich and of Molecular and Cognitive Neurosciences at the University of Zurich, and her research group have now shown that the enzyme calcineurin and the gene regulation factor Zif268 decisively determine the intensity of emotional memories. For the first time, this has enabled the regulatory processes at the synapse, which are important for emotional memories, to be linked to the processes in the cell nucleus.

Mice as an ideal model system

The generation of very persistent memories in the shortest possible time needs molecules in the brain that are not only activated rapidly but which also efficiently control the signalling pathways of long-term information storage in the brain. This is why the protein phosphatase calcineurin, which was already known to have a negative regulatory effect on learning and memory, was a very promising candidate for the Zurich researchers. The researchers used mice as the model system because their learning processes are very similar to those in humans, and established behavioural tests already exist. In their experiments, the researchers conditioned the mice to associate a sugar solution with nausea. This association persists for many months. The mice avoid the sugar solution during this period.

However, their aversion can be overcome slowly through intensive training. Mansuy explains that “Emotional memories are not simply erased. Oppressive negative memories need to be actively replaced by positive memories.” She says it is important at the same time to understand that the negative memories do not disappear, they merely slide down in a kind of priority list and are outweighed by the newly learned positive memories. Mansuy says “This process is not final and absolute, since the priority list can change again.” Karsten Baumgärtel, a post-doctoral researcher in Mansuy’s group, stresses that this is a big difference between emotional memories and learned knowledge. “It is entirely possible for facts to vanish completely from the memory, whereas in extreme cases emotional recollections remain stored for a whole lifetime. Active intervention is necessary to reduce the priority level of negative memories.”

Reduced calcineurin activity

Studies of the amygdala, that part of the brain which is important for emotional perception, showed reduced activity of the enzyme calcineurin in conditioned mice compared to mice in which no association with nausea had been generated. Because calcineurin is a negative regulator of learning and memory, its activity needs to be reduced to enable strong memorisation. To gain more evidence about the role of calcineurin in the memory process, the researchers used transgenic mice in which they were able to selectively activate or deactivate the enzyme in nerve cells of the brain. Mansuy explains that “This selective activation and inactivation in nerve cells is important because calcineurin is an enzyme that occurs in many cells.

For example it also plays an important part in the immune defence system.” As the researchers expected, inactivating calcineurin strengthened the memory of the association between sugar solution and nausea, whereas the memory was weakened by increased calcineurin activity. The researchers were also able to demonstrate that the period of time needed to suppress the negative memory by a purely positive memory could be prolonged or shortened respectively by this intervention.

Regulation processes in synapses and the cell nucleus

Inactivating calcineurin also causes increased expression of the gene regulator Zif268 in the amygdala. Zif268 is responsible for regulating a wide variety of important genes that play a role in the signal processing of memories and learning. Simulating this increased expression of Zif268 in transgenic mice intensified memory in a similar way to the inactivation of calcineurin. This is the first occasion on which it has been possible to demonstrate this magnitude of functional relationship between the activity of an enzyme in the synapse and that of a gene regulation factor in the cell nucleus.

Mansuy and Baumgärtel stress that the purpose of their research is to gain a fundamental understanding of the molecular relationships, but that it is not associated in any way with a direct clinical application in the near future. However, Mansuy explains that: “In the past, the origin of many diseases was unknown and they were regarded as a punishment from God, and at that time those who were affected went to the priest. Nowadays we understand the mechanisms underlying them and can treat these illnesses. We hope that our research has made a small contribution to enabling the same situation also to apply in the future to psychological traumas or brain diseases with memory weakness such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and strokes.”
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu May 15, 2008 6:35 pm

sunny wrote:.....
But where do we go from here? Even if we could get past the media gate, "the people" or most of them, have been so innoculated against 9/11 conspiracy talk the best one could expect of them is :roll:


That's a myth. Lots of Americans are skeptical and distrustful about 9/11, the media, and the USG. This critical thinking can only increase.

That's what has the USG worried because the prognosis is of less and less control of the masses with one large group utterly hostile and an increasingly smaller group trusting and ready to kill "hadjis" for oil.

So the Thought Crime Bill (HR1955/Sen. 1959) tells us we are WINNING, not losing.

But do we stop being concerned about it just because the majority will not concern themselves? Do we stop studying, debating, agitating, or whatever else we might do?

Do we just drop it? Where does it go from here?


JKF Truth wasn't just dropped after Mark Lane's 1966 book and film.
Keeping all truths alive is hard work because there's an effort to bury them.

And truth is cumulative. Patterns and players and tactics are learned and then we EVOLVE to know what is coming and recognizing it when we see it.

SO-

If I drop an object through 1000 feet of thin air and another through 1000 feet of a battleship, which lands first?

Think you need to ask an expert? Or can you figure this out yourself?
:P
Last edited by Hugh Manatee Wins on Thu May 15, 2008 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Thu May 15, 2008 6:37 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:3) The top sections of both Twin Towers came down in around 10 seconds


"around 10 seconds"

You can say CD is proven all you like, but it remains a speculative hypothesis supported by assumptions that are "around" the truth.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Thu May 15, 2008 6:45 pm

Exactly what I was gonna say. "Around" = not.
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Thu May 15, 2008 6:47 pm

thegovernmentflu wrote:Has it dawned on people like Hugh that everyone who watches mainstream cable news was repeatedly exposed to 911 controlled demolition theories via TV over the last couple years? I know it was in the context of these theories being ridiculed and attacked, but regardless- it was all over TV. It doesn't matter that they attacked the theories; what's important is that they went out of their way to expose people to the concept of controlled demolition. Why would they do that? Isn't it likely that the powers that be are aware that a large segment of the population distrusts them, and they're able to calculate how these dissidents will react to the prevailing opinion on television? Wouldn't it be quite easy to guide people into disinformation by using basic reverse psychology? The rise of "911 Truth" and the subsequent insertion of controlled demolition as the central issue always seemed extremely contrived to me.


It is strange, and Hugh should be proud, that "controlled demolition", that undying absolute belief that the towers were 100% "CD'd" has become
the #1 face....the main tenet, like accepting Christ to Christians for the 9/11 questioning/truth/conspiracy movement

How come most liberals, who hate Bush and the war, ALSO hate 9/11 Truthers and beliefs? Because liberals dont want to hear "Bush did it", or "controlled demolition". When you tell people CD, their minds can't handle it...it falls outside of cognitive dissonance, and would literally change their beliefs as much as a UFO landing on the white house lawn.

But also, it becomes the pillar that holds up everything.

You're basically telling people 9/11 being anything OTHER than Osama's pet project SOLELY rests on CD...meaning if thats proven wrong, the whole questioning of 9/11 falls.

How come the media and anti war liberals don't talk about provable facts of Pakistani ISI and Saudi Arabia funding and puppeteering the hijackers? Or how many of the top al Qaeda operatives were or were hanging with CIA and MI6 operatives?
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Thu May 15, 2008 6:49 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:It doesn't take putting a trigger man behind bars to have cultural significance.

We have seen the cultural significance of not "putting a trigger man behind bars" - utter psychic impotence, loss of interest in the political process, capitulation, etc. leading to more and more overt and patent humiliation of our press, our constitution, and our common sense by the perps, who, by the way, have now stolen all the money in Social Security to pay for the war, and are emptying the treasury to give to JP Morgan while you pay for it or go to jail.

Sunny, Searcher08 has provided an interesting physiological reason for the distress caused by these issues. I say the catharsis of fighting back is the only way to cleanse the body of the built up adrenalin ocassioned by civic frustration. Analysis will only go so far towards this end. At least chlamor seems to be distributing leaflets in the tradition of the old left: I guess I respect that, as far as it being a willful action in the physical realm against what he perceives as injustice , even if I do not agree with his polemic.

Some where we need to draw a line, and decide exactly what we are unwilling to accept as Americans. We have seen what marching has gotten us. A general strike is fully warranted, as a first step. Small groups of individuals could easily disable the day to day routine of this country with very little work, for example, by driving very slowly on the freeways; or, by pulling stop cords and fire alarms in public transit centers continually; by driving old cars into the middle of large bridges, and stopping them, getting out and abandoning them, etc., in other words strike and sabotage. These techniques were proven by Ghandi and others. Cause trouble. Organize. Refuse.
Last edited by barracuda on Thu May 15, 2008 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Thu May 15, 2008 6:51 pm

If I drop an object through 1000 feet of thin air and another through 1000 feet of a battleship, which lands first?

If I drop a 10 story building on a 90 story building how much slower than free fall does it fall?
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Thu May 15, 2008 6:52 pm

sunny wrote:
Like the JFK assassination, we now know the broad outlines of the conspiracy as well as many of the details.


Actually, unlike JFK, MOST truthers do not know about the broad outlines. How many 9/11 researchers know about Ali Mohamed, the connections between WTC 1993-OKC and 9/11? How many know about the CIA use of al Qaeda in the Bosnian and Balkan conflict, or BCCI?

Or how most the money was sent through complicit Dubai banks? Or
how the heads of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, and even Kuwait are all in bed with al Qaeda? Or how the muscle hijacker trainer Luai Sakkra, as well as Ayman al Zawahri were at one time CIA assets?

Or how a lot of the money sent to the hijackers came from the Saudi and Pakistani government, some through the Bush ran Riggs banks?

How many truthers know about the biggest smoking gun of them all:
Ptech and Yassin al Qadi?

Or how many times the FBI were told to back off from flight schools and financiers?

So no, I strongly disagree with the notion that a lot of people know the broad strokes.

Its

"Bush and Cheney did it, Osama is innocent, al Qaeda doesnt exist, fake remote planes hit the towers, no plane hit the pentagon, controlled demolition, Flight 93 was shot down and the hijackers are alive".

None of which has been proven true at all, and some of that is outright disinfo
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu May 15, 2008 7:14 pm

Jeff wrote:
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:3) The top sections of both Twin Towers came down in around 10 seconds


"around 10 seconds"

You can say CD is proven all you like, but it remains a speculative hypothesis supported by assumptions that are "around" the truth.


There's tons of evidence "around" the truth. And much of it is undeniable.

I expected quibbling about the exact time of destruction but don't miss the rest of the list of physical evidence in the meantime.

That YouTube clip is awful disinfo citing NIST, FEMA, MIT, PBS and Judy Wood's crap. Why would you post that? You might as well be posting 'no planes.'

The same video source has a bunch of clips posted at YouTube claiming to debunk 9/11Truth altogether, "one conspiracy at a time."

Yikes. :x
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby thegovernmentflu » Thu May 15, 2008 7:26 pm

8bitagent wrote:You're basically telling people 9/11 being anything OTHER than Osama's pet project SOLELY rests on CD...meaning if thats proven wrong, the whole questioning of 9/11 falls.



I didn't say anything like that. My point was that the entire 911 issue has been portrayed in the mainstream media as being inextricably tied to hypothetical controlled demolition theories, and that this has led to 911 Truth's downfall. If you look at my statements on the other current CD thread, you'll see that I'm clearly on the side of the "conspiracy theorists" when it comes to 911, but I just don't accept that controlled demolition is provable.

Unlike some people, I don't claim that my pet theories are automatically true just because they make sense to me. I do think that there are multiple layers of media manipulation; we shouldn't automatically assume that something is a legitimate threat to the establishment just because the talking heads on TV spend lots of time attacking it.
thegovernmentflu
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Thu May 15, 2008 7:30 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:There's tons of evidence "around" the truth. And much of it is undeniable.

Are you saying the building fell in around 10 seconds undeniably? I guess, though, that fifteen seconds is "around" ten seconds. Undeniably so.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Thu May 15, 2008 7:36 pm

thegovernmentflu wrote:
8bitagent wrote:You're basically telling people 9/11 being anything OTHER than Osama's pet project SOLELY rests on CD...meaning if thats proven wrong, the whole questioning of 9/11 falls.



I didn't say anything like that. My point was that the entire 911 issue has been portrayed in the mainstream media as being inextricably tied to hypothetical controlled demolition theories, and that this has led to 911 Truth's downfall. If you look at my statements on the other current CD thread, you'll see that I'm clearly on the side of the "conspiracy theorists" when it comes to 911, but I just don't accept that controlled demolition is provable.

Unlike some people, I don't claim that my pet theories are automatically true just because they make sense to me. I do think that there are multiple layers of media manipulation; we shouldn't automatically assume that something is a legitimate threat to the establishment just because the talking heads on TV spend lots of time attacking it.


That post was directed at Hugh, apologies:)
I actually agreed 100% with your statement, and I definitely find it curious
that the whole mainstream focus on the "truth" movement is on CD.

I was directing that comment to Hugh, saying that forget everything else, 9/11 rests on CD solely
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby cptmarginal » Thu May 15, 2008 7:56 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
Anyway, at least on this board we do not have to be dominated by the omnipresent (extremely boring) CD evidence plastered everywhere.


Boring?

By the way, sorry if these comments are off mark - having not read many other (boring) 9/11 threads, my knowledge of previous arguments is practically nil.


:x :idea:


Allow me to modify the second statement:

"having not read many other (boring) CD 9/11 threads, my knowledge of previous arguments is practically nil"

9/11 as a whole continues to be a huge source of fascination for me. It just seems that for someone who talks such a great deal about psy-ops and framing, you are missing a very relevant and obvious example.

Hell, my opinion leans strongly towards some form of unknown military demolition. But, again like JFK, just because the theories are on to something real doesn't mean they aren't being used as part of the equation. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this was part of the original plan - in both cases.

Wrong. The experts who deny CD are USG perps and miltary contractors and not many, either.
Lots of experts agree that the Conservation of Momentum is sound and the NIST lies.

That's a flawed statement. Denying the dogmatism of widespread CD theories does not equal accepting the NIST report. It doesn't even equal denying a purposeful demolition.

barracuda wrote:Kennedy assassination research is a rarefied hobby practiced mostly by dillettantes rather than scientists and mostly for fun as a glorified game of "Clue." It is not a worthwhile pursuit, and is akin to watching "American Idol". What reason is there to fret and fret over the particular mechanism of the collapses while another 30,000 children starve to death each day? For justice? Whose justice? The victims? The perps have already gotten away with it. For truth? Whose truth? The last guy left to post? Don't get me wrong, now. I love to look at the pictures, the frame-by-frames, the Fireman's video, parse the NIST report, lambast the Comnmission, all that. But I don't think for a minute that this activity approaches something like striving for "justice." The only way "truth" can be served here is to "enact a response to the perpetrators" - a response like their feet kicking for purchase and finding none at about three feet off the ground.


So you are accepting the conspiracy hobbyist viewpoint of JFK research? It seems like a rather broad brush to paint a large group of diverse people with - though clearly that stereotype has a direct parallel with 9/11 CD proponents.

Do we not have thousands of dedicated and interested people on a global interconnected network? Why should we be restricted from pursuing any course of research we like? This is why RI appeals so much to me: the CD roll-call can be (and is) repeated numerous times on here, but it is always challenged and always surrounded by other info. Exactly how it should be! This is how research is supposed to happen. This is why we have a data dump forum at our disposal.

To put it another way: would any of you really want those who disagree with you to drop everything and agree, based solely on your conviction of being correct?

Carnac The Magnificent predicts: until some new info on this topic pops up, the debate will remain highly emotional and go in the same circle. This is fine, as long as you don't mind wasting your time.
Last edited by cptmarginal on Thu May 15, 2008 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The new way of thinking is precisely delineated by what it is not.
cptmarginal
 
Posts: 2741
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 176 guests