MacCruiskeen wrote:From Edward Curtin's review of Griffin & Woodworth's new book 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation:[...]
As a sociologist who teaches research methods and does much research, I find the Consensus Panel’s method exemplary and their findings accurate. They have unmasked a monstrous lie. It is so ironic that such serious scholars, who question and research 9/11, have been portrayed as irrational and ignorant “conspiracy theorists” by people whose thinking is magical, illogical, and pseudo-scientific in the extreme.
A review is no place to go into all the details of this book, but I will give a few examples of the acumen of the Panel’s findings.
As a grandson of a Deputy Chief of the New York Fire Department (343 firefighters died on 9/11), I find it particularly despicable that the government agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that was charged with investigating the collapse of the Towers and Building 7, would claim that no one gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers, when it is documented by the fastidious researcher Graeme MacQueen, a member of The 9/11 Consensus Panel, that over 100 firefighters who were at the scene reported hearing explosions in the towers. One may follow end-note 22 to MacQueen’s research and his sources that are indisputable. There are recordings.
On a connected note, the official account claims that there were widespread infernos in the South Tower that prevented firefighters from ascending to the 78th floor. Such a claim would support the notion that the building could have collapsed as a result of fires caused by the plane crashing into the building. But as 9/11 Unmasked makes clear, radio tapes of firefighters ascending to the 78th floor and saying this was not so, prove that “there is incontrovertible evidence that the firefighter teams were communicating clearly with one another as they ascended WTC” and that there were no infernos to stop them, as they are recorded saying. They professionally went about their jobs trying to save people.
Then the South Tower collapsed and so many died. But it couldn’t have collapsed from “infernos” that didn’t exist. Only explosives could have brought it down.
A reader can thus pick up this book, check out that section, and use common sense and elementary logic to reach the same conclusion. And by reaching that conclusion and going no further in the book, the entire official story of 9/11 falls apart.
http://edwardcurtin.com/the-fakest-fake ... woodworth/
This I had never heard before:Or one can delve further, let’s say by dipping into the official claim that a domestic airline attack on the Pentagon was not expected. Opening to page 78, the reader can learn that “NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski was warned of the Pentagon attack by an intelligence officer,” who specified the illogical spot where the attack would happen shortly before it did. In Miklaszewski’s words, “And then he got very close to me, and, almost silent for a few seconds, he leaned in and said, ‘This attack was so well coordinated that if I were you, I would stay off the E Ring – where our NBC office was – the outer ring of the Pentagon for the rest of the day, because we’re next.’” The authors say correctly, “The intelligence officer’s apparent foreknowledge was unaccountably specific.” For if a terrorist were going to fly a plane into Pentagon, the most likely spot would be to dive into the roof where many people might be killed, including top brass and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. To make an impossibly acrobatic maneuver to fly low into an outside wall would make no sense. And for the government to claim that this impossible maneuver was executed by the alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour, a man who according to documentation couldn’t even pilot a small plane, is absurd. But the intelligence officer knew what would happen, and the reader can learn this, and marvel.
http://edwardcurtin.com/the-fakest-fake ... woodworth/
Is NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski still alive? Reachable for questioning? Not that anyone will bother trying, and in any case Mr Miklaszewski's memory will undoubtedly fail him if he knows what's good for his health.
Published on September 15, 2018
Amazon Censorship of 9/11 Unmasked
On September 11, 2018, I published a laudatory review of the new book, 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth. It is the definitive book on the defining event of the 21st century. The book concludes that the official version(s) of the attacks of 11 September 2001 are false. The review was subsequently reposted at many publications. There was great reader response and interest in the book, which was due for official release the next day, 11 September. My review provided a link to the book’s Amazon page that noted the 11 September availability date.
By the next day readers were responding in great number that the Amazon site was reporting the book was “out of print,” when in fact it had just been published. This “out of print” notification lasted until the evening of 13 September when it was changed to “in stock on September 30, 2018.”
By the following morning it was changed to “in stock on September 21, 2018,” only to be changed again between 11-12 PM on September 14 to “in stock on September 24, 2018,” where it remains as of noon on Saturday the 15th. It is unheard of for a book that has an official release date and that is available straight from the publisher to be listed as “out of print.” Amazon Canada continues to report that the book “has not yet been released.” And obviously, all the date changes that push the book’s availability back by weeks suggest a clear-cut effort by Amazon to make sure readers cannot obtain the book quickly and in a timely manner from the most popular source, if ever.
Will they soon announce that the book will never be available for national security considerations or because it violates Amazon’s “content guidelines”? The book’s publisher, Interlink Publishing, is selling the book now and says Amazon has the books. So why is Jeff Bezos’s company playing this game? His other major business, The Washington Post, (known as the CIA’s newspaper) is surely not going to review the book, nor would their editorial staff post encomiums to David Ray Griffin, Elizabeth Woodworth, their colleagues in this important research.
Readers should demand that Amazon immediately change their website and accept orders to be shipped today. Whether they are responsible for this game of chaotic discouragement or the intelligences services, who are fully capable of hacking into Amazon, as Edward Snowden has pointed out, I do not know. But something very odd is happening and Amazon should correct it.
https://off-guardian.org/2018/09/15/ama ... -unmasked/
Published on September 30, 2018
Reddit “Quarantines” 9/11 Truth Board
On Septemtber 27th Reddit went on a surge of what it calls “quarantining”. Quarantining, in Reddit parlance, is putting certain boards behind warning screens, essentially placing a barrier between the public and the information. Some boards affected by this were r/TheRedPill and r/FULLCOMMUNISM (a full list of quarantined boards is available here).
For the most part the boards are concerning political opinion – whether about gay marriage, religion or gender. Some of these boards are potentially racist (one is called “white pride”). The majority of these boards carry a warning along these lines:
The 9/11 Truth board carries this warning:
1. The warning is not about offensive speech or possibly disturbing images, but about “misinformation”.
2. The warning suggests a government-run website as an alternative.
Reddit is basically admitting, in their own warning, that this information is not offensive and is not hate speech. Their only concern is that it may be “misinformation”. In which case some questions become paramount:
1. Who gets to decide what is “misinformation” and what isn’t?
2. Is “misinformation” defined simply by whether not you agree with the government or its sponsored spokes people?
3. Is it appropriate to categorize alleged “misinformation” alongside violence or hate speech?
4. On a scale of 1-10 how Orwellian does this look?
Feel free to discuss below.
https://off-guardian.org/2018/09/30/red ... uth-board/
Published on September 30, 2018
A compilation of OffGuardian’s 17th anniversary 911 articles
https://off-guardian.org/2018/09/30/a-c ... -articles/
DrEvil » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:01 pm wrote:identity » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:21 pm wrote:Building 7 didn't just collapse "because small fires", but because two of the biggest buildings in the world had just fallen basically on top of it, carving away vital sections of the sophisticated foundation system known as "the bathtub".
What??? I've always understood that WTC7 suffered minimal damage from the fall of nearby WTC1. Where do you get this "two of the biggest buildings in the world had just fallen basically on top of it" from?
The side of the building we see in the collapse video has almost no damage, but the other side of the building is pretty messed up. There should be pictures somewhere.
Belligerent Savant » Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:19 pm wrote:DrEvil » Sat Sep 10, 2016 3:14 pm wrote:^^Pretty sure I saw pics/video of the other side of the building (facing the towers) showing some pretty extensive damage from the earlier collapse.
Or the building had a demolition fail-safe built into it due to the various shady government offices it was housing. A last resort to prevent anyone rifling their drawers.
My personal pet theory for why the towers collapsed is that someone involved in the construction cut corners and used lower grade steel and pocketed the difference (criminals in the construction business? In New York? Preposterous!). Would also explain why they were so keen to cart everything off to China so fast since it would fuck up the insurance claim.
All these points are of course pure speculation and have no bearing on your reality of choice.
"reality of your choice", indeed. The illusion of a shared reality is quite persistent.
Your pet theory is no less valid than any other, of course. That said, in an exhibition of weekend laziness -- as I'm tired of watching myself type, and also because the quoted explanation below surpasses whatever pastiche I'd conjure up -- I will copy/paste a portion of a thread that more or less mimics my sentiment on this matter (I haven't yet performed proper due diligence on this 'metabunk' site; I may retract this link later):
WTC7Looks to be a small office fire that spread to about 2 floors towards the end of the video. Remember, no jet fuel on this building since no planes hit it. Some "corner damage" does not explain the building dropping out of the sky the way it did.So....when the penthouse falls from the roof to the ground before the rest of the building even moves..why do you consider that evidence of demolition?Because the bulk of the structure then proceeded to crumble into dust and debris. Partial collapses due to fire in steel structures aren't unheard of, but a complete collapse unquestionably is. That it happened once, horrible. That it happened twice, incredible. That it happened three times consecutively? Unbelievable. I don't see what the pent-house dropping first changes about that.
I've also never denied that the building was on fire, nor that it suffered considerable damage to one corner. Structural damage to the bottom corner of a building is an understandable cause for a collapse, in the direction of that damaged bottom corner. Building seven didn't collapse due to structural damage though, remember? It collapsed due to the fires alone according to NIST, as the structural damage to the corner cannot possibly account for the way in which the building collapsed. It took them seven years to compose a believable account of the building 7 collapse, and even then the account seems entirely inadequate compared to the findings of an investigation of a far less significant event. The NIST report on building 7 isn't 'proof' of anything, and their 3D model would never be considered admissible in a court of law without disclosure of the data used to produce it.
DrEvil » Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:12 pm wrote:I remembered it looking much worse than in that picture. Goes to show how unreliable memory is.
I'm definitely leaning towards CD for building 7 and coming around to the same for the towers.
I'm always moaning about how we should listen to the scientists, so I should take my own medicine.
We have extensively studied that carefully. I'm not going to tell you that it's controlled demolition. I'm going to tell you that we looked at various modes of failure, and in those modes of failure we have ended up with a result that looks very, very comparable to what the building actually went through when it came down.
AS: Now in terms of those modes of failure that look like the way the building came down, could you get into that with our audience?
LH: I can tell you that we looked at several floor levels, taking out the interior columns. The core columns. And then we delayed the coming down of the exterior columns and we determined that wasn't what really happened because the behavior was totally different. The columns, if they were going to fold inward, didn’t happen. We tried everything. We looked at the individual column-buckling behavior from the bottom of the substation all the way to the top. We looked at various aspects of every single column to try to understand what it would take to do what many people think it did. We couldn't ever get it to do those things.
So then we started looking at severing the exterior columns as well. And when we began to do that, then the behavior of the system begins to look a lot like the—and I'm talking about after or just simultaneously to the interior columns—then you're getting a behavior that's very, very similar to what you see in the video.
AS: What could cause those columns to sever in those moments? What natural phenomenon do you think could cause that many core columns to just break at the same time to give us what we saw that day?
LH: I don't believe there is a natural phenomenon that's going to do that.
AS: Well, I will let our audience draw their own conclusions from that statement.
"FBI failed in its federally mandated duty to assess all the evidence available that previous 9/11 commissions may have missed."...was just the FBI who "failed" to admit the obvious to the people they serve? It seems that pedophile rings aren't the only atrocities the US Authorities won't touch.
FBI Accused of Omitting Evidence From 9/11 Report
March 26, 2019 JENNIFER HIJAZI
WASHINGTON (CN) – Nearly two decades after the deadly Sept. 11 attacks, a lawyers’ group claims the federal government did not properly assess evidence known to the FBI but left out of the 9/11 Review Commission findings, including reports of pre-placed explosives at the World Trade Center.
A memorial lies in the footprint of one of the World Trade Center’s twin towers, destroyed in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. (William Dotinga/CNS)
The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth filed a complaint Monday against U.S. Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray, claiming the FBI failed in its federally mandated duty to assess all the evidence available that previous 9/11 commissions may have missed.
“The FBI’s 9/11 Review Commission, and the FBI itself, failed to assess and report to Congress, as mandated, several other categories of significant 9/11 related evidence known to the FBI via reports in the press, via the web, and via public events and/or reflected in the FBI’s own records,” according to the lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., federal court by lead attorney Mick Harrison.
Although the 9/11 Review Commission’s 2015 report details several avenues of evidence explored in its investigation, the plaintiffs argue that investigators failed to address a few key points of evidence, including potential explosives placed before the attacks, individuals seen celebrating the attacks nearby, certain surveillance videos and phone calls, and alternative Saudi Arabian funding sources for the attackers.
Regarding the pre-placed explosives, the lawsuit claims that testimony from over 100 first responders describes “sights or sounds of explosions on 9/11 which due to the circumstances and timing and specific details observed and reported could not be explained by plane impacts or resultant office fires.”
These allegedly included “‘bombs,’ ‘explosions’ at the lowest level and the highest level of the buildings before the collapses, flames being blown out, a ‘synchronized deliberate’ kind of collapse, like a ‘professional demolition,’ ‘pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’ sounds before the collapses.”
Following a 2014 mandate from Congress, the FBI appointed former Attorney General Edwin Meese, former congressman and ambassador Tim Roemer, and Georgetown counterterrorism expert Bruce Hoffman to head the 9/11 Review Commission.
The commission’s tasks, under executive director and former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, involved reviewing the FBI’s preparedness for modern, global threats as well as analyzing the bureau’s “analysis of institutional lessons learned and practical takeaways” from other high-profile counterterrorism cases.
It was also tasked with reviewing any evidence from the Sept. 11 attacks that was may have been known by the FBI but not considered during the first 9/11 Commission in 2002.
The complaint asks a federal judge to compel the government to finish carrying out its mandate by “undertaking a new thorough external independent assessment of any evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.”
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Harrison, told Courthouse News that he is “cautiously optimistic” they’ll see the injunction they’re looking for. He said the complaint isn’t about any one particular theory regarding the attacks, but simply “to force the FBI to do its job” and present all the available evidence to Congress as required by its original mandate.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond Tuesday morning to a request for comment.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests