The Reflecting Pool

[Jeff]

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.

But getting people to believe the right thing for the wrong reasons could serve a few purposes.

Because it's wrong, it can never be successfully prosecuted. (And if it's proven wrong, there goes the whole case.) Eliminating from consideration covert linkages to terror networks removes the most damning evidential trail. And thats what happens when the 19 and bin Laden are made to disappear. To talk about them and their intel/security associations is now, to many Truthers, virtually indistinguishable from the official story. (Trust me, I know!)

Because it's massive (particularly the most extreme examples of holograms and mini-nukes), the perpetrators appear to be much more powerful than they are. It's to the advantage of evil geniuses to be regarded as near-invincible evil geniuses. The more people who think so, but who can't do anything about it, the better for the bad guys. Orphaned knowledge is debilitating.

Also, serious, independent investigations are likely to be discouraged so long as things like "Loose Change" are representative of the quality of a case for conspiracy.

[hiddenite]

The problem I see of concentrating on CD is it doesn't take you anywhere . It can be neatly wrapped up as o yes there were bombs planted too well done loose change et al we now have re-examined and there were bombs. It's not as if it would be difficult to water-board some poor sod into admitting it is it? And America is the greatest country in the world because our great citizenry has led the way in this disclosure blah blah blah. Meanwhile Bin laden has been fattened then thinned then faded away and is no longer a fact even. The facts about the buiding are blurring the tapes of Bin Laden are blurring . Ali Mohammed the man who met politely with Fitzgerald in a bar before his arrest has diappeared who knows where. I am old so I blame the video age for people preferring to watch fillums rather than think

[yesferatu]

(Sorry JD...I made this post on a thread I should not have started, seeing that I just missed seeing yours.)

Why would there be a "whistleblower" needed to get these drawings to the public at large? In other words, why would the blueprints, harmless by themselves (right?), be suppressed, requiring an "insider" with access, to reveal them for dissemination? And why would this making public, the mere act of making these available, be something couched in terms like "whistleblower" and "leaked"? Why would blueprints of non-existent buildings, having now made been made public, have any controversy around their being made public?? You DO see the problem here? Why wouldn't the blueprints have been public property years ago?

<<A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction.

The documents were passed to physics Professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who has done extensive research into the collapse of the buildings and contends that explosives were used to bring them down.

Little is known about the identity of the whistleblower at this point, however the blueprints provided consist of 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast on top of the North Tower.

Most of the drawings can be viewed here.

The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.>>

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=2752

All I can say is STUDY THEM. Answers more than a few questions. Lays to rest all kinds of shit.

[yesferatu]

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.

Right... and as your proof you gave links to construction photos. And a "rendering".
Neither linked to the blueprints. That for which you claim was available years ago.
Do you know what "whistleblower" means?

[JD]

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.

LOL. There are >100 Documented eyewitnesses in the smoke and mirrors Jeff, something no one had access to in 2004.

Probably is becoming the story because at least in part of the observation about eyewitnesses I made below. Jeepers, the silence on those pesky eyewitnesses is deafening.

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/evidenc ... index.html

and

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... esses.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?

Personally, I treat everything I know as a ledger. Two columns, one which has items supporting any cognitive bias I have, and another with items refuting it.

I keep my books up to date, adding information as I go. Kinda like doing quarterly financials.

At some point, the balance sheet doesn’t balance anymore and I’m forced to come to a different appraisal.

Unfortunately, most people don’t think this way and it results in a lot of useful information being flushed away and idealogical arguments. It’s a thought model I wish more people would adopt.

I'm actually familiar with the "producer" of this film.

Bingo!! Here’s the strength of a discussion board. You have expertise on this topic. Can you find out who is funding this? When did it get started? When is release planned?? How come it isn’t on the imbd?? I want to hear as much as you can reasonably divulge and find out.

LOL, if you do well, there might be a position on a BK grill for you.

Then I suppose I'll keep writing about it.

Jeff, you consistently deliver excellent writing and ideas. Please, keep it up! 10 watt light bulbs like myself depend on it.

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."

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.

I agree with the second quote, but not the first.

Does ANYONE really think that a successful prosecution of someone who isn't a patsy will happen with 9/11? Under any scenario? I sure don't think it'll happen. As things unfold the patsy may reach up to something like the Scooter level or even above, but the "Real Thing" won't go down.

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.

It seems to have been a secret to the 9/11 cOmmission!

I requote:

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/911 ... _Notes.htm

So I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to this "revelation."

Oh, that’s easy. By noticing the two curiosities I posted.

The first is the 9/11 cOmmission's Report that basically lied about the core by calling it a "hollow tube" and stating the exterior walls bore the bulk of the weight. Isn't that interesting to lie about that in an official report? Why would they lie? To support some incorrect narrative? Why would they do that?

The second curiosity is why the blueprints were made secret to begin with. For whatever reason would that be? To support some incorrect narrative? Why would they do that?

I'd be interested in hearing a straightforward explanation of those two items. I'll have to check out the JREF bulletin board for one, I suppose.

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.

Glad you showed up, Nomo. As noted by yourself on many threads previously, you can find someone to say anything. So to be on the other side of things now is pretty funny and to be honest makes a pretty weak point.

By way of analogy, if this discussion thread was a frat house party Nomo would be the one showing up with dealcoholized beer in a Perry Como sweater.

Perhaps you could fortify the discussion?

I am still waiting for your rebuttle to Dr. Rice's article, as posted on a previous thread. You might as well do the new physicist that has come forward too. And Danny Jowenko. And the >100 eyewitnesses who heard, saw, and saw the effects of anomalous explosions. That too was on another previous thread.

Perhaps they are all Mormons?

flash, flash, flash

Ahhh..... what the hell would a fireman on the scene know about it anyways?

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.

I agree 100%, as per previous postings and my wee jabs at the LC boys along the way. ANYONE who is too slick or popular and should be treated with extreme caution.

I can't figure out how if they did the original in a very short time with only a few thousand dollars, that they didn't update to a LC V.3 as soon as the errors were flagged to them. Jeff produced an excellent link a while ago that did a fantastic job flagging the LC errors.

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

In my thinking, the above comment is right on. Hammer, there may be a position for you in the Burger King Corporation! Drop your application off at the nearest restaurant, where you can get your mask.

Because it's wrong, it can never be successfully prosecuted. (And if it's proven wrong, there goes the whole case.) Eliminating from consideration covert linkages to terror networks removes the most damning evidential trail.

Hmmmm. Covert intelligence agencies are by nature impenetrable. They are designed to confuse, confound, and be impenetrable to sophisticated counterintelligence agencies who don't have to play nice "Court of Queen's Bench" rules. So I'm entirely unconvinced of the merits of this argument.

This was Garrison's approach. Didn't work then. I don't think it'd work now. I'm not a lawyer but have some background in the courts. I've spent approximately one month of court time in some pretty involved cases. Fortunately every time it has gone my way. Yikes, it is a hell of a process let me tell you. I hope to never get anymore experience with such matters!

I guess working for Frank has possibly given you too a tour of courtrooms, eh? LOL!

And.......

And thats what happens when the 19 and bin Laden are made to disappear. To talk about them and their intel/security associations is now, to many Truthers, virtually indistinguishable from the official story.

Really? I haven't noticed that. I see the "truthers" going on about the still living hijackers, intelligence connections, etc. I personally think it is all valuable information and wouldn’t think to disrespect people who create it.

I agree that there is an overemphasis on CD. And I see a lot of sloppy work. I hate that. And WAY too much talk of "proof" and "smoking guns". However, the movement is indeed going the way you state, Jjeff. I wonder if that isn't because that is where progress is being made. As I've said before, if the folks you consider the "Real Thing" aren't making headway and advancing their research or making inroads into communication of their message, they will be passed by.

The best way to counteract it is to produce better product; produce a better "Real Thing".

Go win those Cola Wars, rather than lamenting what was.

The problem I see of concentrating on CD is it doesn't take you anywhere . It can be neatly wrapped up as o yes there were bombs planted too well done loose change et al we now have re-examined and there were bombs. It's not as if it would be difficult to water-board some poor sod into admitting it is it?

Yeah. To true. But no way around it. The same arguments apply to any agents that got caught up the linking aQ to Western Intelligence. Anyone wonder how the heck they got McVeigh to take the fall?

Again, if anyone thinks that the real perps are gonna get their just rewards on this topic I think they are in for a real disappointment.

I’m rather shocked no one commented on the item below:

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.

Isn't there supposedly a lot of people around here interested in mind control, deep politics, etc?

Yesteratu, good comments and welcome to the thread.

Vive le France. Long Live the King!

[chiggerbit]

Well, saying the outside walls were bearing the weight is obviously false, and it was ridiculous for them to even say so. The Towers were a curiosity to many all over the world from the conception, a tourist fascination attracting people to watch its construction, to explore them all those years. Talk about a public record--it doesn't come much public-er than that. The lie to that "secret" was in plain sight to hundreds of thousands of people for many, many years.

The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped

.

That part would seem to be true. There was a heavily reinforced structure around this core that housed well over 200 sets of elevators. Can you imagine that? The problem is that this core strucure was the real weight-bearing structure.

Just because you accept that people heard/saw explosions does not automatically mean that the explosions were bombs. Scope out the part of the building above the smoke in this pic, and then tell me that there weren't quite a number of things exploding that had nothing to do with bombs.

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
l

[chiggerbit]

On the other hand, I find it really hard to accept that the planes could take down both buildings in almost identical ways.

[kelley]

the buildings fall in 'identical' fashion because they are 'identical' structures and each were hit by airplanes?

this is the kind of specious reasoning that's pitched to the public as a part of the official narrative. it's so patently ridiculous that it's essentially overlooked. it's a part of 'the big lie'. who'd believe such a thing? why, lots of people, it seems.

i think it's curious that there were already plots and rumors afoot to take the towers down as early as 1976. if the construction integrated a pre-fab mentality towards demolition from the get-go, what exactly does this imply? that the rockefeller brothers simply built the towers as a elaborate prop to be utilized later in some scheme that remained to be realized? barthes and baudrillard and other commentators have remarked on the towers' strange status as acutal buildings, and i'd often wondered sometimes if they were concieved as a kind of 'set' . . .

[Mel]

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.

But getting people to believe the right thing for the wrong reasons could serve a few purposes.

Because it's wrong, it can never be successfully prosecuted. (And if it's proven wrong, there goes the whole case.) Eliminating from consideration covert linkages to terror networks removes the most damning evidential trail. And thats what happens when the 19 and bin Laden are made to disappear. To talk about them and their intel/security associations is now, to many Truthers, virtually indistinguishable from the official story. (Trust me, I know!)

Because it's massive (particularly the most extreme examples of holograms and mini-nukes), the perpetrators appear to be much more powerful than they are. It's to the advantage of evil geniuses to be regarded as near-invincible evil geniuses. The more people who think so, but who can't do anything about it, the better for the bad guys. Orphaned knowledge is debilitating.

Also, serious, independent investigations are likely to be discouraged so long as things like "Loose Change" are representative of the quality of a case for conspiracy.

I don't think anyone is advocating a trial for CD. Obviously, such a case would have no defendents, and thus would not lead to justice.

I still contend, in spite of your suggestion elsewhere that it's "dishonest", that "hooking" people with CD (especially B7) is not only honest (7 WAS a CD -- of this I am certain, and would lay my life on the line right this instant in defense of that statement), it is the most effective way to get the herd to even start considering the vast amounts of real, "prosecutable" info. The approach goes something like this:

"Heh, have you seen the footage of WTC 7 collapsing on 9/11? What, you didn't even know about that building? Don't feel bad...the MSM has kept it "under rug swept" right from the get-go (and gee, that Alanis is sure somethin' huh). Pretty freaky collapse, don't ya think? They say it was fire and incidental damage from the other collapses, but there's practically zero evidence for this claim. BTW, there's a myriad of other 9/11 anomolies that you likely aren't aware of. Check out this book by [insert whatever author you want here]."

[elfismiles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7j8Kpp3vYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdji41HGPuQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4DjpCdC-C0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seysSYeP-yk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I7TY0fZH3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0a9MlyCuC8

Finally watched this ... via NetFlix.

I thought it was really well done. Though it ends with ... well, I won't spoil it but it wasn't much of a surprise.

And although I thought it was pretty good - it is basically 911-1.0, ie - it is all the basic CD of WTC1,2,7 and what hit the Pentagon.

Anyway ... it is easily available.









9/11 - The Reflecting Pool - Interview
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19680

9/11 - The Reflecting Pool - Interview
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=26605

[JackRiddler]

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.

That's if you believe that this is all LC has done. (LC, AJ, WAC, the demolitions-only approach, Pentagon hole fanatics, no hijackers, living hijackers, fake cell calls, flash-and-pod, etc. etc.)

In fact, all this has simultaneously convinced greater and greater numbers of people of the fact that "truthers" (a cult appelation, willingly adopted) are stupid or full of bullshit.

Once people reject LC and the related products, they'll never again want to listen to anyone else about September 11th. Thus LC while "converting" many has polarized the debate along certain lines.

It doesn't matter if LC was disinfo -- and I don't think it was, in the sense that its makers were hired to act as agents. What matters is that LC set a lot of provably false notions and serious factual falsehoods in a music video. It killed the movement with cool. It turned itself into the issue, especially when the morons who made it refused to readily admit their mistakes, try to learn, step back from the self-promotion and try to promote good research and spokespersons with more effective appeal to the mainstream (like some of the relatives). LC cemented public opinion one way or another, and now there is no more motion.

Hammer of Los, it's four years since you wrote the above, so to be fair to you, what do you think today? You've had occasion to see how the LC trend developed.

Outside the US, where people don't wave the American flag, where they have had more direct experience of CIA coups and don't shy away from concepts like collective action, deep politics or the undying importance of history in everything that happens today, a majority of people probably will forever believe "9/11 was an inside job" or some comparable statement. A majority of Americans in the 2004-2007 period may have at least suspected the same thing, but something like 80 percent of Americans now have the main opinion on this subject that they don't really know and they don't really care, since they barely remember the details. But they do know that they don't like "truthers." That is in part the accomplishment of "Loose Change" and Alex Jones, as the best-known exponents of a certain herd.

.

[hanshan]

the buildings fall in 'identical' fashion because they are 'identical' structures and each were hit by airplanes?

this is the kind of specious reasoning that's pitched to the public as a part of the official narrative. it's so patently ridiculous that it's essentially overlooked. it's a part of 'the big lie'. who'd believe such a thing? why, lots of people, it seems.

i think it's curious that there were already plots and rumors afoot to take the towers down as early as 1976. if the construction integrated a pre-fab mentality towards demolition from the get-go, what exactly does this imply? that the rockefeller brothers simply built the towers as a elaborate prop to be utilized later in some scheme that remained to be realized? barthes and baudrillard and other commentators have remarked on the towers' strange status as acutal buildings, and i'd often wondered sometimes if they were concieved as a kind of 'set' . . .

hmmm; very nice...



...

[freemason9]

Quite honestly, we can look at what has transpired since 9/11 and see quite clearly that we have been had. It seems quite apparent in retrospect, and the need for damning evidence has essentially vanished.

[MinM]

It probably won't be the artistic or box office success that was The Reflecting Pool but it does have Chistopher frickin Lee ..

The Guardian @guardian · Christopher Lee and Uma Thurman attached to 9/11 drama set in Denmark http://trib.al/I1Oh5Iq