The Reflecting Pool

[JD]

I was pretty much totally tuned out on 9/11 issues until Jeff's recent blogs got me digging into things a bit. Talk about waving a red flag in front of a bull! Yes, this French disinfo artist is finding interesting stuff out.

Way more interesting than I was thinking was out there.

No wonder the folks at Burger King's head office are getting........ antsy.

No doubt limited hangouts are being crafted, and new patsies are being set up for a fall should this keep getting momentum. As I've said before the media spins have been constructed and are being rolled out. This is going to get interesting.

As an example, check this out. This is a trailer for what looks to be a big, high quality movie which is sympathetic to "conspiracy theories" about 9/11. This makes loose change look like it was made by a couple of kids over a weekend. (well, it LC actually was LOL).

Anyways WATCH THE TRAILER for this new movie "The Reflecting Pool". It might make the hairs on your back stand up.

http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com/reflectingpooltrailer.htm

NOTE the references to explosions in the basement and the construction of the towers. More on this below.

On explosions in the basement,the George Washington blog does a very good job summarizing the evidence. It's eyewitnesses mostly, and very compelling for anyone not suffering from severe cognitive bias to "get" that there is some serious anomalous evidence that has not been accounted for in the official story nor fully pushed out in the 9/11 "truth" community (of either "Truth Classic" or "New Truth" variety:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/below-belt.html

Here's the latest thing to come out. Previously confidential architectural drawings of the towers have come to light. I'd recommend going to the link HERE for the full story.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Read the whole story but it you don't have time or inclination I'd like to emphasize a couple of key points.

The 9/11 cOmmission essentially lied and denied the existence of a structural core to the building. It states unequivally that "exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building" and "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft". Don't believe it? See below:

For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/911commission/report/911Report_Notes.htm

No wonder they wanted the drawings confidential!! those were stout structures indeed!

When anyone actually sees what the core was built like it was, it becomes increasingly unlikely to accept as reasonable that simultaneous failure along and entire floor happened naturally.

I was reading some of Jeff's old blogs to try to get a better perspective. I still don't "get it". I don't understand where TF he's coming from. Makes no sense.

This jumped out at me, September 30th 2004:

And I feel Hopsicker's pain at the acclaim given theologian and 9/11 latecomer David Ray Griffin's rather addlepated The New Pearl Harbor, while Hopsicker's vastly more important Welcome to Terrorland remains widely unknown and unread by American readers, even those prepared to challenge the 9/11 Commission's insulting half-truths.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/09/911-truth-or-consequences.html

Jeff was kinda saying the same thing two and a half years ago.

The quote kind of drips of sour grapes. Griffin was successful, was getting their message out successfully, yet rather than take heart in this progress and success Jeff kinda pisses on it. WTF is up with that?

And this:

For instance, consider this latest absurdity, touted on the website as the "Holy Grail": puffs of smoke as the WTC was hit somehow demonstrate "pre-demolition" charges. Such a page screams - at least to my sensitive ears - COINTELPRO.

Hmmmm. Well in September 2004 that might have been the correct judgement. That was 2.5 years ago.

Lots has changed.

Consider that: on August 12, 2005, the New York Times announced the release of more than 12,000 pages of oral histories in the form of transcripts of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency medical responders.

These eyewitness testimonies are very powerful evidence. Evidence that Jeff didn't have 2.5 years ago.

I've provided some decent excerpts on prior postings if people want to look for a minute for them. Or go here to some new links
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/index.html

and

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

Seeing how many new items, not just the 12,000 pages of eyewitness accounts have advanced the state of knowledge wrt 9/11 anomalies from September 2004, is it not fair to think that perhaps a September 2004 position might not be the best reflection of the state of current knowledge?

So why create this "New Truth" and "Classic Truth" divide? The previous "CD wedge" was bad enough.

Maybe one day I'll understand; I'm a bit slow when it comes to understanding all this parapolitics stuff. Oh and speaking of slow; I'd mentioned the sasquatch video and noticed it being commented on.

It is a BEAR; as obvious as can be. Laughable. JD's done enough hunting and woods living over the years that he knows a flipping bear when he sees one. I can't imagine people putting a BEAR on the internet and calling it "humanoid". What idiots.

On The King. Well, our march towards power goes unabated.

Vive le France. We are sending an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. It will serve as the command and control centre for whatever happens there.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L26410799.htm

In addition, nobody seems to have twigged onto this little gem in France's world parapolitical power base. We run the world's largest spin shop:

Welcome to Ipsos, a company of inquiring minds and passionate people giving a voice and shape to the thoughts of millions of individuals around the world. We explore, probe and challenge conventional wisdom. We assess market potential and interpret market trends. We test products and advertising, and help our clients build long-term relationships with customers. We study audiences and their responses to various media. We measure public opinion around the globe.

http://www.ipsos.com/

Golly gee. Imagine that. Do you think our fine froggie f#ckfaces at Ipsos might be involved in any of this in the buildup to the upcoming information wars surrounding 9/11? Vive le France.

And foolish Anglos, rest assured that you'll never know what their results are or even what work they are undertaking. When projects which may be controversial (or incriminating LOL) come up I would imagine it is probably insulated from their ultimate clients via "advocacy groups" and law firms who can claim lawyer/client privilege. So only a very privileged group will ever know wtf is up; and even then it I would think that it would be severely compartmentalized.

Just like we French F#ckface Burger King workers are. I'm stuck at the fry station and doing bulletin board disniformation.

The "Take Out" window, with it's attendant wet jobs and handling the cash, is a distant dream. A wet dream.

Ahhhh........ but I digress.

Chiggerbit, glad you liked the Gannon/BK clip, but seriously think you've got to get out more, gal. LOL.

But seriously, Gannon is French surname.

COINCIDENCE????? I think not......

Nothing is a coincidence, and despite all appearances what I'm saying isn't all madness either.

Vive le France!!! Long live The King!!!!

[judasdisney]

I watched the trailer.

Why a dramatization?

I had the same problem with Oliver Stone's "JFK." Aren't the facts dramatic enough?

Dramatization is a splendid way to obfuscate by presenting legitimate facts mixed with a turd in the punchbowl -- to associate real facts with "hologram theory" or "pods" or "particle beams."

COINTELPRO or disinfo, in other words. I have little doubt that shoe shall drop.

After all: Why a dramatization?

[Jeff]

I was reading some of Jeff's old blogs to try to get a better perspective. I still don't "get it". I don't understand where TF he's coming from. Makes no sense.

This jumped out at me, September 30th 2004:

And I feel Hopsicker's pain at the acclaim given theologian and 9/11 latecomer David Ray Griffin's rather addlepated The New Pearl Harbor, while Hopsicker's vastly more important Welcome to Terrorland remains widely unknown and unread by American readers, even those prepared to challenge the 9/11 Commission's insulting half-truths.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/09/911-truth-or-consequences.html

Jeff was kinda saying the same thing two and a half years ago.

The quote kind of drips of sour grapes. Griffin was successful, was getting their message out successfully, yet rather than take heart in this progress and success Jeff kinda pisses on it. WTF is up with that?

Well then, I'm nothing if not consistent.

I want to emphasize that any sour grapes dripped were on behalf of Hopsicker and what I still regard as the neglected parapolitical - and prosecutable - aspects of 9/11. Griffin's success pissed me off because there were better books, and readers introduced to 9/11 theories would have someone whom I thought needed new batteries for his bullshit detector as a guide.

And this:

For instance, consider this latest absurdity, touted on the website as the "Holy Grail": puffs of smoke as the WTC was hit somehow demonstrate "pre-demolition" charges. Such a page screams - at least to my sensitive ears - COINTELPRO.

Hmmmm. Well in September 2004 that might have been the correct judgement. That was 2.5 years ago.

Lots has changed.

Puffs of smoke are still puffs of smoke, and mirrors.

Yes, what's changed is rather than demolition being a part of the story, it is now the story. I'm more interested in, and want to keep discovering and telling, the other story. CD doesn't need my voice added to its chorus.

[brownzeroed]

Okay, I'm afraid I may be stepping on some toes here, but here goes:

I wouldn't put to much emphasis on this piece. Speaking as a member of the so-called "independent" film community of Los Angeles, this is at worst a crass realization that money/notoriety can be found in this arena. At best, its a naive attempt at something substantial.

I'm actually familiar with the "producer" of this film. And the only thing I'll say about her is its fair to assume that someone who graduates from USC, NYU or AFI is already pretty well indoctinated. These are the comparitive Harvard and Yale of film making. In short, they are the enemy in my book. Bad art. Woefully naive world view.

As my pal Robbie Mueller would say, "Hollywood is to film making as Detroit is to cars."

[Jeff]

JD, another thing I should say. Or say again, because I know I've said it more than once.

My position on the value of obsessively drumbeating demolition doesn't change even if demolition is true. It is still a backwards step from a prosecutable case. Even if you have a How, you don't have a Who. You'll have another limited hang out: the "terrorists" also planted bombs, but it couldn't be revealed until now for reasons of "national security." Sure, a lot of people will see through it, like they see through Oswald. But has that been enough?

Look, I'm not saying everyone should stop looking at cd. I'm saying 9/11 Truth has gotten seriously out of balance (and some aspects, seriously unbalanced), and so in my little way I'm stressing what's been forgotten, which I think contains threads of evidence which tie the higher criminals to the crime in a way which cd does not and never can.

Maybe one day I'll understand; I'm a bit slow when it comes to understanding all this parapolitics stuff.

Then I suppose I'll keep writing about it.

[robert d reed]

I'm basically inclined toward Jeff's opinion on this matter.

My preferred metaphor is "lifting up a rug to find out what's been swept under it."

Even if there's a big-ass lump in the middle of the rug, you're better off lifting it by an edge- or better yet, a corner.

[robert d reed]

I should note the contrary opinion of Alex Constantine toward Dan Hopsicker and Sibel Edmonds. Constantine holds that all the deep-background parapolitics stuff is just another layer of cover laid down to distract inquiries from following the actual trail of evidence.

And, for what it's worth, Constantine appears to be inclined toward controlled demo scenarios for the WTC.

I think Constantine has done some valuable work. He develops an awful lot of info. I'd say his weak suit is evaluation and analysis- he seems to me to make a lot of unstated assumptions, and he doesn't weight his data points as often or as appropriately as I think he should. He shares that unfortunate habit of the overly conspiratorial-minded, of implying that the simple fact of a given person's employment by a corporation that has military or intelligence ties equates to taking a knowing role in some of the felonious or even homicidal schemes that he's given to positing. Too much guilt by association.

He also contributes to the circular firing squad phenomenon that so often pertains to conspiracy researchers, of implying or attributing nefarious motives to every other researcher or media figure who doesn't share his theories and conclusions. I think it's gratuitous. It's fully possible to criticize Dan Hopsicker's research efforts as unproductive red herrings without implying that he's a conscious agent of the 9-11 insider conspiracy, for instance. ( Constantine's chief piece of evidence to impeach Hopsicker's background appears to be that Hopsicker was at one time employed as a producer for NBC News. )

I think political conspiracy researchers can undermine even cases that are otherwise compelling, by spreading their net too wide.

Nonetheless, Alex Constantine is not to be dismissed out of hand. At least sometimes, there's some provocative substance supporting his claims- even the ones that appear on first notice to be extravagant surmises.

[chiggerbit]

Here's the latest thing to come out. Previously confidential architectural drawings of the towers have come to light.

What??????? I pay little attention to this argument on the net, but even I have seen discussion on the internet from several years ago, maybe 2002 or 2003, about the style of architecture, with the core being the strength, WITH PHOTOS of the buildings under construction obviously showing where the strength was. If they were trying to keep that a secret, it was a pretty public secret for years now. Trying to remember, could be wrong, but I think the discussion indicated that that style was an innovation at the time, and maybe even that it tended not to be used since then.

[chiggerbit]

Found this on a quick google. Scroll down a little more than halfway to see more of the construction photos:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings ... mages.html

[chiggerbit]

Here's another one:

http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/ ... wtc_2.html

[chiggerbit]

When I saw the buildings collapse, it struck me, as it did most people, how much the fall looked like a controlled demolition. But...one thing I'm pretty sure of is that these skyscrapers are built to be demolished safely, that their "shelf-life' is pretty short, and so it's important to build them in such a way that they can be taken down safely three or four decades after being built. So, I've always wondered if the planes could have--accidentally, possibly--capitalized on this architectural quirk.

[Jeff]

[What??????? I pay little attention to this argument on the net, but even I have seen discussion on the internet from several years ago, maybe 2002 or 2003, about the style of architecture, with the core being the strength, WITH PHOTOS of the buildings under construction obviously showing where the strength was. If they were trying to keep that a secret, it was a pretty public secret for years now.

I know; me too. What Steve Watson writes - "The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections." - bears no relation to what I'm sure I've known all along: that the cores were massive, and amounted to the strength of the building. So I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to this "revelation."

[nomo]

So, I've always wondered if the planes could have--accidentally, possibly--capitalized on this architectural quirk.

Ahem. Well, yes, there are indeed some people who claim that the reason the buildings fell the way they did was precisely because of their unique construction.

Anathema to CD proponents, of course.

[chiggerbit]

yes, there are indeed some people who claim that the reason the buildings fell the way they did was precisely because of their unique construction.

Heehee, yes, nomo, that shows how little I follow it all.

[Hammer of Los]

I watched the trailer. It looked good actually, and chose to highlight what I think is some revealing and pertinent information. Doing a little research on the writer/director/producers leads me to believe that this is most likely;

a naive attempt at something substantial.

However, then I went and read the synopsis;

"ALEX PROKOP (JK Baltazar), a successful journalist, receives a rare 9/11 video tape revealing missile-like bursts of light on the hijacked planes as they hit the Twin Towers. The footage was sent by PAUL COOPER (Joseph Culp), a driven researcher, whose daughter died on 9/11. Sensing a good story, Prokop travels with Cooper to New York and Washington, DC, where they uncover suppressed information implicating the US Government in the attacks. As Cooper introduces Prokop to key eye-witnesses, the façade of the "official story" begins to crumble. Prokop hears accounts of underground explosions in the Twin Towers moments before their collapse, and learns of mysterious "engineers” who rendered the WTC security systems inoperative the weekend before 9/11. To his astonishment, he discovers that the firm providing WTC security was run by immediate family members of the President.

We follow Alex and Cooper as they investigate the inexplicable collapse of the 47-story WTC Building Seven, disprove the implausible airliner "attack" on the Pentagon, and uncover the illegal destruction of physical evidence from Ground Zero."

So what to make of this? Don't some folk think that pod/missile talk is disinfo (like I tend to)? And no-plane at the Pentagon huh? Hell, I dont even want to start discussing that. I'm personally not sure about what exactly happened at the pentagon, but there are all those eye witnesses to a plane at least.

I think the explosion in the accessibility of internet video has raised the status of the cd evidence. I think the video evidence of the towers collapses, complete with explosions, together with multiple eyewitness reports both of explosions and of senior emergency management personnel warning those nearby to move away because building 7 was about to be "brought down," is enough to convince a lot of current believers of the official narrative that something is definitely up. Yeah yeah they can find out about all the rest (eg put options, isi connections, Norad non-response, distractionary wargames, unconvincing fanatics, fbi hands-off directives, dancing israelis, etc etc hell whatever you think is important) once they begin to challenge the official narrative. Or even better, we can all go into all the rest later in public when the rising clamour gives rise to a truly independent investigation with subpoena powers like we all claim to want (heh dream on eh?)

I'm beginning to think that if Loose Change and their ilk are disinfo, then its a funny move to pull, convincing greater and greater numbers of people of the fact that 911 was an inside job.

Over time I can only see more and more people becoming increasingly sceptical of the official narrative. What the likely result will be of this I dont know. I am rather fatalistic and think the chance of there ever being a genuine, transparent, independent enquiry examining the evidence and letting the chips fall where they may is close to zero.