Not about "unanswered questions"... but answered questions

Unanswered questions...

...are obviously no answers.

Answered questions...

...are the reason we are debunkers. Answered questions give you evidence. Evidence build a case.

It really is this simple.

Just wanted to make a VERY short post about something fairly important. I think. Quick and to the point.

Good day.

How the planning happened (made up)

Intro

A fellow debunker on Facebook made a comment about the supposed planning of 9/11 that I thought was so funny that I decided to make a blog post out of it. These funny stories are both entertaining and might make some question what they believe and why in the best case scenario. The words below the headline are all his and not mine. He chose not to be named. Without further ado I will share the story and call it "The planning".

The planning

Somewhere, in a darkened, smoke filled room, evil men conspire.

"Gentlemen. We need to make sure we frame our (finger quotes) 'operation' on (finger quotes) 'Islamic terrorists'....from the group we're calling (finger quotes) 'Al Queda.' Suggestions?"

"Well, we could get video of them boarding the (finger quotes) 'planes'...."

"No. They would just blend in with the other passengers and we'd be accused of (finger quotes) 'stereotyping.' We can't have that."

"Okay. How about if we create this thing we'll call a (finger quotes) 'passenger manifest?' We can simply forge their names onto that. Show a paper trail of (finger quotes) 'buying tickets,' (finger quotes) 'baggage checks,' (finger quotes) 'drink purchases...'"

"No you fool! Anyone can claim that the paperwork was forged. Besides, we would then have to add the airlines in on our conspiracy, which means less profits for us."

"Hmm. How about if we plant a passport on the streets of New York from one of the (finger quotes) 'hijackers'....soak it in (finger quotes) 'jet fuel' to drive the point home that it came from the planes...."

"Liking it....liking it...."

"Then, we can take a lighter to the edges of it....you know to make it look like it went through an (finger quotes) 'explosion'..."

"NO! It must be kept pristine so that the sheep never question who was on the planes!"

"Well....ooookay. But I've got another idea too! We could make them out to be Iraqi since our long term goal is to invade Iraq and steal their oil."

"No. That won't be necessary. Jenkins here is working on planting a WMD in Iraq for that operation. Aren't you Jenkins?"

"Zzzzz....er....uh....wut?"

"(Rolls eyes) Never mind. He'll get it done. Or he'll be back to discrediting those annoying JFK (finger quotes) 'researchers' on Facebook."

"Uh....what's (finger quotes) 'Facebook?'"

"Oh. It's another operation that is in the works where we will employ thousands of (finger quotes) 'shills' who will help us keep the sheep from waking up."

"Brilliant."

How good they were

How good were they?

First off, who do I mean by "they"? By "they" I mean the ones who were responsible for 9/11 according to truthers. For simplicity, I will simply write they from now on without quotation marks, but imagine "they" (wink wink) are there.

This post will be about some of the things they supposedly did to allow us to admire their amazing skills.

They

OK, going back to the question who they were. Well, they were so good, that we don't even know who they were! Again, we assume it was not the AQ now, but some group of individuals that did a number of things to orchestrate 9/11, and also to shift the blame from themselves towards those chaps in AQ that supposedly did the actual hijackings with supposed real people and planes. or so they want us to believe.

We know they haven't talked since noone has really admitted to these supposed deeds that we can confirm. So, we know they can keep secrets. Let us look at what they did.

Before 9/11

They apparently worked in tandem with AQ or nudged AQ to do what they wanted AQ to do in order for AQ to frame themselves and be witting or unwitting patsies and pawns to be used. Because AQ made fatwas against the US 2 times and their actions and words afterwards show that they wanted to attack the US and claim they did 9/11. Some of them, like KSM and Binalshibh, express a wish to want to die for their supposed roles in 9/11. I am sure they fooled AQ and made them puppets to use as punching bags to take the blame for what they did. Again, here I refer to they mentioned earlier and which this post is about.

Apparently they also got parts of the Arab world and intelligence community along with it since they all gave warnings of something big about to occur prior to 9/11.

What they did in Manhattan

Remember the supposed jet engine found on the pavement in Manhattan? They planted that! A jet engine, right smack dab in Manhattan, without anyone seeing them on a beautiful busy workday. Very sneaky. First they banged up the engine so it would look like it came from a 767 that crashed into one of the Twin towers. They were so good that they made it look similar to a simulation of the damaged engine in a simulation of the damage to an engine that flew through a model of a tower that was shown in a NIST-report. Skills. I wonder who smashed that engine up and who placed it there without being noticed.

They also planted plane parts on the roof of some buildings without being seen and - interestingly - planted a spandrel with a plane wheel wedged into it from one of the towers. That stuff weighs a LOT! and they still managed to just plop it there on the street as we can see in a picture that I cannot remember right now the source of, but I ask you to google that up for yourself or simply believe me, but preferably you'll google it yourself.

Towers

The major things they did of course though, the "finale", were the demolitions of the Twin towers. That was something else. They used explosives that were quiet, did not flash so the many cameras picked it up or leave any physical parts like cords or metal parts that any worker that sifted through the fine material reported to have found.

They were very interesting. They opted to take down the south tower (WTC2) first, even though it had been hit last. Also, they chose to make the demolitions they controlled extremely fast so truthers would be tipped off that they did it, thereby revealing they were behind it. Haven't figured out why they didn't make it slower if it exposed that they were responsible, but that's what was literally going down in downtown Manhattan in 9/11 2001 truthers say.

Something curious they did was when they handed the script to BBC about WTC7, which they made them call the Solomon brother's building. This script said that WTC7 had fallen, but silly BBC said so and filmed it before it had been! Well done to make BBC not reveal the script in all these years I'd say.

Oh, and WTC7 fell fairly quietly. Such a sneaky demolition!

They were interesting in how they chose to demolish these 3 towers differently. WTC1 peeled like a banana, WTC2 tilted. Both of these from the top. but WTC7 they "pulled" from the bottom! What that thing was with the penthouse is not known to truthers.

Pentagon

For the Pentagon, they opted for a different approach. Not sure if they didn't have the CGI-machine working, but they instead opted to pay off (assuming they payed, greedy bastards!) many to claim they saw a plane, when in actuality they used a missile! From where was this missile launched? Why did they have the missile fly in big turn before hitting the Pentagon at an angle? Typically, it seems like missiles fly rather straight and fast to pack a big punch. Or, so, I, a layman, think.

The "funny guys" were so silly that they planted engine parts, but of the wrong type of plane! According to truthers at least and the truthers know what happened as we know.

How they knocked the light poles with a missile is unknown at this point.

Also, we are not sure why they handed out surveillance camera images that did not show a plane. They could've faked it with their CGI-machine, but again, we must assume it was not working here. Used too much in NYC maybe? Questions... Well done in not showing the missile though.

Now, they hit a newly renovated part of the Pentagon that could resist an explosion. Why they opted to hit that part is also unknown. If we assume they were greedy and didn't want to bother paying for the reconstruction of that part again, they were in for a surprise when it collapsed! Got many workers out of the way though. Would've been a shame if 5,000 or so would've died.

At the Pentagon, they apparently also planted plane parts without being spotted. Also in Shanksville! Funny enough, they opted to "drop" the black boxes here, although they smashed the CVR so we couldn't hear them on their faked tapes. Too greedy to record another tape I'm sure.

Shanksville (U93)

Speaking of Shanksville... Here in Shanksville, curiously, they opted to use a real plane for some gosh darn reason, BUT, they also shot it down by the military... and had the military not say a peep about it. Not a word... or else!

Then they dug a little hole with some planted smoke in and burned some trees, and voila! - called it a crash site!

As mentioned before, plane parts were planted here, but in a very sneaky way: underground! and they dirt must've been placed on top of them so they later could "find" the parts. Of course, some items of the hijackers were also planted to bring the point home. Here they opted to let us have the cockpit voice recorder along with the data recorder (the 2 black boxes). How they got the loved ones to recognise the people on the recording seems a bit odd.

What they wanted

If we try to put it all together, all these events, what seems to have been what they wanted to accomplish? First, let's just quickly recap. They bombed the towers, shot a missile at Pentagon and had the military shoot down U93. It might not seem like these seem so very related, but I am sure they knew what they did and why. One question might be why they didn't attack more buildings in Washington if they had access to at least one missile? Why not shoot one at the Capitol building? Also, why not use missiles in all 3 locations? Out of missiles? 

Back to the motive. It seems like they wanted to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Again, they acted in an interesting way here and chose to not use Afghanis or Iraqis as the supposed hijackers, but mostly Saudis! Did they want us to suspect and blame them? Truthers have not cleared that up yet. It's curious also how in Iraq they chose not to plant some WMDs just to at least try to save face to the American public and the world. Especially given how they went around to plant stuff in the US! Not so easy to plant in Iraq under the cover under the military? They work in mysterious ways... Funny guys!

Why would they want to attack Afghanistan or Iraq? Couldn't they have saved the money used to commit 9/11 to instead buy some new houses or yachts or travel the world? Guess not...


Were these guys good or were they good? (They were good)

Finally

Just a little disclaimer. With this post, I just wanted to show how little the truthers' conspiracy theories "hold together" and make sense if thought about from a broader perspective. In my view at least. I also want truthers to think about their theories more and dare to scrutinize their own claims and the people making them. Preferably doing so without pride or trying to side with "your camp" to maximize chances of getting to the truth!

I did not use links in this post as I wanted to try to make it somewhat funny and read more like a story sort of. A different post compared to my others, I know.

I do not mean anything bad against most truthers except those with evil intentions. I have a big understanding for how confusing it seems many times when it comes to 9/11 and this blog is an attempt to try to provide some facts to help people out if they want it.

Also, no disrespect of any victim or loved one of victims intended. I have learnerd how badly people have suffered both physically and emotionally from 9/11 and I am full of compassion for them.

Let us go for truth and care for each other!

Why do we debate 9/11? [main aims and why]

Why do we debate 9/11?

It can be useful to take a step back from the heated rhetoric and ask ourselves this question. I'll give my answer in this post. Why do I ask it? Because many have for years been stubborn and kept one position and kept "in a camp".

The main goal: finding the truth

Might seem like a given, but it is not. Why? Some have agendas that might make the agenda be the main goal, to push for something or other. If your income is dependent upon you doubting the "official" 9/11 "story", then you very likely will doubt it. These agenda-driven people are often the loudest voices, but they really are not debating I would argue, in one sense because they are only pushing an agenda. There are several agendas, ranging from well-meaning war-protestors to anti-semites.

The 2nd reason why it may not be a given to find the truth is that perhaps we don't even yet agree on what the truth looks like. or how we know we have found it. For some it might be what mainstream media does not say and that fits these people's view of the world. 

For me, it is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". This is still somewhat subjective since "reasonable doubt" might be different for me compared to someone else. but it's pretty good. I think I should not have different standards here from other cases. So, if I do not generally suspect police to plant evicence in other cases, then I should not expect that here. That's one example. If I would see that they had, then of course that would be terrible and cause me to have big doubts.

Also, we may differ on what constitutes evidence. As a clear example of that, many truthers seem convinced they have overwhelming evidence 9/11 was an inside job or some other conspiracy besides the AQ-conspiracy. They "know what happened". Meanwhile, us debunkers might think they very little evidence while we think we have a lot.

But, in any case, this is the main goal and should be our focus. As you may notice, I did not write a word about insulting the other in the text above. That distracts from this main goal. It may very often also be very bad against the person subjected to that treatment. If we can see that this is our main goal, then maybe we can see our debating opponents as more of a "help" as they can help us test our own theories. If we have solid theories, then no objection ought to be able to destroy the theory.

The reason we want to find the truth is of course to assert blame, so the ones remaining alive and guilty can be charged.

Second goal: teach others

Many of us, regardless of sides, have researched this and learned a lot. We can teach others who have studied, but might have missed something that we have learned as 9/11 is a fairly complex matter if one delves into the many theories and facts. but mostly we can teach those who have not had the time to study this as much as we have. Those with superficial knowledge of the theories might benefit a lot from our knowledge. Also, today we have lots of fake news going around, and since day 1 basically, we have had people with various agendas as mentioned before, and they may not want to disseminate the truth sadly(unless it benefits them).

Third goal: learn more

Regardless of which side we are on, we might learn from others with other perspectives. Perhaps they have looked into something we haven't. Bringing that up in a debate might enrich our knowledge. If that indeed is the case, then we again can see how opponents can become a help.

(Fourth goal: conspiratainment)

I put this in parenthesis as this is not really a goal, but often a good thing to do to make the discussions more fun. There are many conspiracy theories that can become quite funny. I call it "conspiratainment". Whether it be Richard Gage dropping boxes or AJ talking about gay frogs.

(Fifth goal: stand up against cyber-bullying and bad insults)

Some harsh words are unavoidable when it comes to debating and some insults will almost certainly come. However, there's rarely any need for the worst insults and maybe even threats etc. We should try to avoid the worst insults. Agenda-driven people might deserve insults at times though. but I mean that people we only debate with that have a differing view should we try to not insult that badly. Everyone is a person and times are tough enough as they are. Also, I think we should try and respect those that have sadly passed away with time, even if they were on the other side. Michael Ruppert for example. Can throw in standing up against racism or anti-semitism etc. in there also.

Summary

These are my goals of what I ideally think are the goals with debating 9/11 and I think they are important to keep in mind to keep the discussions fruitful. of course, we are all individuals, and your goals might differ from mine. My opinion is that these are the good goals with discussing though.

Undeniable proof demolitions were not used in the twin towers?

Twin tower floor connectors

In a recent debate about the Twin towers, I recalled that NIST wrote that all connectors (I thought bolts) below impact were pointing downward. This clearly shows something pressed on them downward and bent them. A demolition would not have done that. Some might get twisted, but they wouldn't in that case all be twisted downward.

To me, who is not an expert, this is an undeniable proof that there was no demolition.

More specific and where to find the info yourself

To be specific, it was so-called floor truss connectors that pointed downwards. As far as I can understand, these are the "plates" that connect to the outer columns and that the floors then rest on. You can, if you want, read about these floor truss connectors in NIST NCSTAR 1-3 here . That will take you to the whole PDF so it might take you some time to load. Then you can go to section 3.5.3 on page 117 of that report. Some truss connectors were missing.

Page 119, the summary, also brings this up.

Caveat, and important to bring up, is that NIST thinks there are too few samples and too random to see a pattern. They are the experts and I acknowledge that. but in the summary, you can see that 93% of the truss connectors in WTC1, and 88% of the truss connectors in WTC2 were pointing downwards or missing.

NIST mentions in the summary (last sentence) that fracture indicate overloading during collapse.

Regarding the bolts, most of those they found had broken off or failed. I mention this, because some claim the bolts were very strong. Section E.7 also mentions that the major failure mechanism was fracture of the bolts. Page 18's second paragraph mentions breaking of the bolts also. Page 108 brings up different bolt failures too.
Section 3.4.4 on page 114, 2nd paragraph, mentions how the Building Performance Assessment Team took pictures of hundreds of columns and panels that had failed at the bolts during collapse. The summary in section 3.4.5 on the same page the major failure mechanism was failure of the bolts even. Section 7.6, page 2.8.2, 2nd paragraph, says the same about major failure mechanism.

Explosive scenario

Again, imagine an explosive scenario. I imagine an explosion similar to a ball of pressure (and more). The pressure from such an explosion I thus imagine would not only push down on such floor truss connectors, or from one direction.

Also, those that espouse the demolition theory say the demolition basically traveled down under the collapse to make the collapse happen.

Summary

So, again, I think these floor truss connectors basically prove there was no demilition by planted explosives. or, at least, I don't see how to reconsile the 2 possibilities. Again, I am no expert, so I could for sure be wrong about this.

Also, there are of course other indicators it wasn't a demolition by explosives like the fact that WTC2 fell first and the lack of any discernible sounds that match those of controlled demolitions.

The imagined discussions that would preceed supposed "demolition" of the twin towers and WTC7

Hello.

I was responding to someone on FaceBook about WTC7 and then I got to thinking how absurd the discussions might've been had it truly been demolitions that went on back then.

"let's plant silent explosives that will go off silently while everyone's watching from around the world after most of the people below impact has escaped"
...
"especially, let's blow up this obscure WTC-tower few cared about prior to 9/11 so as to point to a lease-holder for no reason"
...
"let's also make the towers collapse as fast as possible so that people can speculate it was demolitions even though we supposedly control these demolitions"
...
"and, guys, not a word. Scout's honor"

These were of course made up by me and satirical. but they highlight logical problems with the demolition-theories.

One could imagine other absurd statements, like:

"let's plant plane parts in New York City without anyone seeing it in one of the biggest cities in the world"
...
"also, let's destroy 2 of USA's most iconic building as an excuse to attack Iraq and Afghanistan and lose trillions of dollars and thousands of human lives in messes that won't be solved in 17 years"
...
"let's shoot down United 93 with a missile for no reason by a plane noone has seen shoot a missile at it"
...
"we have to make AQ-videos spewing anti-American propaganda for years of course"

Yes, these are exaggerations and imaginary, but they truly highlight how illogical it would have been to do these things that conspiracy theories would have us believe "they" did.

There's also some "conspiratainment" in them.

Happy Easter!

What truthers and debunkers have in common

What truthers and debunkers have in common

My first blog post in a while.

Intro

There are 3 things that I recently found both sides of these 9/11 conspiracy debates have in common. Let me get started right away.

First thing in common

Both sides at times see many on the other side as shilling for or being with the perpetrators or those responsible for 9/11. This is a generalization of course, and not all do this, and those that do may not claim all on the other side do this. But I am sure you've heard truthers claim debunkers are "government shills" or may have been called that yourself numerous times.

As a debunker, you might think several truthers sort of "shill" for the attackers by calling them "patsies" etc.

Either one side is correct or neither is correct.

Second thing in common

Both sides might think the other side is stupid or that they're "idiots".

Truthers may and often do call debunkers "sheep".

Debunkers often use the term "twoofers".

There are variations of course for both sides, but still. It's interesting how both sides believe this about the other.

Here I guess both COULD be correct. We ALL could be idiots, or, in the best case, none.

Often in real life though: people generally don't call actual idiots "idiots".

What I think it's really about here in the case of 9/11 are very different points of view making neither side unable to understand the perspective of the other side.

Truthers internally may be unable to understand other factions of the truther-community, but that's a separate issue.

The third thing in common

Finally, both sides often these days feel like the debate is over.

Truthers for their part have almost since I can recall when I began to look at this, perhaps in 2005 or so, said "We know what happened".

They also have videos claiming 9/11 has been "solved", but then point in the totally wrong direction and without evidence, but that's besides the point. The point is they claim it has been "solved".

You can probably think of variants of these where they basically say it's over.

Us debunkers may think these discussions sort of "ended" around 2011 or 2012 perhaps. At least, after 2006. We might think it's 2006 all the time in "trutherland" as many truthers seem to use arguments stemming from roughly that time-period although some arguments made then had been launched earlier.

So, many of us debunkers feel the debate is indeed over and that truthers lost (sorry truthers, just saying from our perspective). It was AQ that did it in our point of view with some of the finer details like what Saudi-Arabia did or what the support-network of the hijackers in the US were etc. to be worked out.

End thoughts

Although 3 things in common sounds pretty positive, I do not think it helps us move forward unfortunately. 

But it is very interesting how both sides can be so convinced of being correct even though the perspectives are so different so that likely one side ought to be correct, while the other isn't. Not saying which side though, even if I have my opinion as I wrote under the 3rd thing we have in common.

But perhaps these 3 things in common might make some of us more humble and understanding towards the other.

And you can probably come up with more things in common, such as how we both say we want to get to the truth and spread the truth. Hopeful I guess.

The Tube

Introduction

Thought about the famous speech from the movie "Network" and how one can slightly modify it and get a fairly meaningful text today about YouTube as opposed to Television as he was talking about in the movie. Will write [YouTube] where "Television" has been replaced by me.

Have also cut up the speech a bit to have a more coherent speech and one that is fitting the "YouTube generation". I will write "..." where bigger parts of the speech has been cut away.

Disclaimer: I don't think there's anything wrong with YouTube as such and actually love it, but it depends on what one watches there.

Speech

"And woe is us! We're in a lot of trouble!!

...

Because less than 3 percent of you people read books.

Because less than 15 percent of you read newspapers.

Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube.

Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube.

This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation.

...

So, you listen to me. Listen to me!

[YouTube] is not the truth. [YouTube]'s a goddamn amusement park. [YouTube] is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players.

...

But, man, you're never gonna get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you wanna hear. We lie like hell. ... We'll tell you any shit you want to hear.

We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night -- all ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know!

You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here!

You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal.

You do whatever the tube tells you --

You dress like the tube.

You eat like the tube.

You raise your children like the tube.

You even think like the tube.

This is mass madness, you maniacs!"

Fairly fitting, right?

Going to FEMA camp this summer?

Summer time among other things means a time for different camps people of different ages can go to.

Will you go to FEMA camp this summer?

It has all the Kool-Aid you can drink! One of the perks.

They also have pools at the FEMA camps. Pools of molten steel... Very hot, but strong as...well, steel.

Who can attend the FEMA camp? 

Well, being a truther is a sure bet it seems according to some conspiracy theorists.

That's your ticket in. or, actually, you don't need a ticket! VIPs only though. Many prolonged stays however...

You can get to "shill" with the Debunkers at FEMA camp!

Experiences

Help yourself to a Bilderberger or maybe enjoy a "gubermint".

Don't worry, US taxpayers pay...

There's also waterboarding!

Ah, false flags are in the air... nothing like FEMA camp...

Day or night, FEMA camp attendees will be subject to attempts to "wake them up", sometimes literally.

The Illuminati is there to help with the lighting...

You can actually get your very own black box at FEMA camp! A personal one and it's actually black, not orange. Big though. or so says Alex Jones and he has shown pictures and videos.

FEMA camp is not to everybody's liking of course. "A few fries short of a Happy Meal" as they say. "A burger short of a combo meal", "a few tacos short of a fiesta platter", "a few toppings short of a Deluxe Pizza", "a few burgers short of a barbeque".

Supposedly some "bite the dust", but that's unconfirmed.

In summary

Either way you slice it, FEMA camp is quite an experience!

The Disaster Movement?

Have you noticed a tendency in the 9/11 "truth movement" and other conspiracy groups to quite often seem to predict impending doom, a disaster, a collapse or a new world war?

Well, at least I have. I'll give you some examples.

Michael Ruppert

Michael Ruppert was a truther who became sort of famous from a lecture he held that he turned into a movie about 9/11. It seems like it didn't go so well for him after that and he got depressed and was in a documentary simply called "Collapse". Here's a 2-minute clip:

RIP Michael Ruppert...

AMTV

You have likely heard about Christopher Greene and/or AMTV if you have checked out conspiracies on YouTube:

A search for "collapse amtv" gives you 8,690 results on YouTube:

Even more results for "ww3 amtv": 11,900:

StormCloudsGathering

StormCloudsGathering is another common account on YouTube with many views that delves into conspiracy theories:

StormCloudsGathering is Aaron Hawkins in real life. 2,610 results for "collapse storm clouds gathering":

Alex Jones

The uncrowned chamption of disaster theories and fearmongering(without seemingly honestly worried - he acts scared at times only) is Alex Jones. We can see that in the numbers:

His website is of course infowars. 313,000 results from "collapse infowars". If you search for "ww3 infowars" you get slightly more results, 333,000:

I just included the first hit in the search results above

Hypocritical illogical reversed stance

Ironically, many of these conspiracy theorists that so quickly yell disaster, collapse, WW3 etc. then minimizes real threats like say terrorists or the risks of guns in USA (about 9,000 gun murders per year) or climate change. These are just some examples of real threats they play down. That can make you at times wonder whose side they're on and if they're really "patriots" as at least Alex Jones claims to be.


Referring back to the above examples and others, you have to wonder: is the truth movement in fact the disaster movement?

Just a thought.

nano-thermite advocates have not discussed something which may cast doubt on their whole theory...

Steven Jones and Niels Harrit are very likely the most prominent nano-thermite advocates when it comes to 9/11. They have of course given out the paper in which it was claimed that nano-thermite was found. Others claim it was paint chips...

nano-thermite has been one of the leading theories among truthers. Not everyone has believed in it among the truthers, but seemingly a majority has and still likely do.


Interesting discussion I had with 2 nano-researchers

Yesterday was interesting for me as I was at an institute where I have studied to finish parts of something I studied earlier. This institute is at college- or university-level and certainly has a lot of advanced technology also compared with the rest of the world.

One department deals with nano-technology, like materials and physics at the nano-level. I have not studied that topic though and never been there even though I've passed it many times as it's in the same building as where I was. Not even a teacher I talked to said he was sort of related to them.

I've been curious about this department before, but not gone farther than that. Yesterday though I saw 2 men that maybe looked Pakistani or Indian that seemed to belong to it so I thought I could ask them if they had heard about nano-thermite ever. They had not.

but some of what they told me was very interesting and especially one thing, which perhaps isn't exactly news, but it's not something anyone I have seen have brought up in 9/11-discussions about thermite before(I may have missed it of course).

First, one man I had seen exit the department, told me that if you make something nano-sized, the melting point usually drops, decreases. That's pretty important to keep in mind if we imagine someone wanted something that could withstand fire...

The Second, most important thing, which the first is a part of, is that the other man told me that properties at the nano-level of a material often changes. So, he told me for example that Gold at the nano-scale is not golden in color, but green! He also mentioned some other element or compound that at the nano-level became very strong if you made like a coil or like thin "rope" of it. He also told me about a research project, but I'm not sure I should mention that here.

This 2nd man told me many properties could change at the nano-level like electric conductivity and others mentioned before and more.


Questions

My discussion with these 2 men made me think that maybe Steven Jones, Niels Harrit and others don't even know how thermite works at the nano-scale? How can they be certain that thermite which works in one way at the macro-level ("normal" size) will behave the same way at the nano-scale?


I will maybe try to seek out another department more specialized in materials than this one that the 2nd man I talked to recommended me to contact and ask more about this...


Disclaimers

Small "disclaimer" here: I know several have claimed that the US military have nano-thermite as used in demolition or at least had, but I have not seen it proven as far as I can remember. I'm not saying that is not true, or that thermite cannot work the same way at the nano-scale, but I'm trying to point out that at least in the 9/11 conspiracy-world the properties of nano-thermite has not been researched at all as far as I know. By that I don't mean dust samples from Ground Zero, but research on known thermite at the nano-level where its properties are tested and documented.

2nd "disclaimer" is that research on this has been done that I'm just not aware of. If so it's my bad, but I thought this was interesting to bring up.

Alex Jones joined my FB-group...

I haven't written so much about myself, but I am on FaceBook as well as most who have read this blog knows.

I also have a group there about 9/11, called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are an Inside Job!". I take a stance in the group against the conspiracy theories against 9/11, but I welcome truthers and debunkers alike. I want there to be fair & equal treatment of all members as long as they don't break any rules in a bad way. A stance is also taken against anti-semitism so I have decided that Israel, Jews and Zionists/Zionism are off limits.

I try to say with the group name that many conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 come from Americans, so they are an "inside job" one can say these theories or those that spout them. I also give some examples of Americans who have done this like Sofia Shafquat who made "9/11 Mysteries" (video), Richard Gage, the Loose Change-boys and others.

Chief among them though is Alex Jones so I list him first.


Well, one day I was in another 9/11-group where truthers are mocked, but are also very active. We were discussing something and Alex Jones' name came up. Another guy made a very good comment about Alex Jones, which I thought was spot on:

So, I copied it and posted it in my group as a stand alone post everyone can see (my group is public), as seen above. The same day, I saw a request to join the group from an "Alex Jones". I first thought it was one of the truthers I fought with at times in the other group who joined with a fake account because he thinks I talk about Alex Jones too much. But when I looked at the Alex Jones that asked to join my group, it seemed like the official personal account of the real Alex Jones (he has a page too). I may be mistaken, but I am fairly sure it's his personal account at least. You can view it here.

Here you can see Alex Jones request to join. It says he has 23 friends in the group. The "funny language" is Swedish, which happens to be my native language.

So, I let him in and he liked 2 of my comments when I said this was his account and not his page on the post where I welcomed him to the group. See below:

It says I added him to the group and some comments are not shown. Alex Jones also "liked" Margery's comments and another person's comment. Apart from this I have not seen him being active in the group.


Since before I have Dan Bidondi in the group, who is a reporter for Alex Jones, or has been. I haven't been sure about if it really was him or not, but teased him a bit and when I made an insulting post about Alex Jones, I often tagged Bidondi and told him to show it to Alex Jones... That COULD be a reason why AJ joined, but I don't know. Nor do I know what he plans to do in the group either.

He shows a sense of humor or something by asking to join when I posted a comment which pretty much trashed him. I thought that was hilarious.


Future will tell what AJ will do in my group if anything, but if this truly is AJ (one can never be too certain), then I feel like I have personally come pretty much "full circle" in my 9/11 debunking or 9/11-interest as I started to become interested in the 9/11-conspiracies after seeing his "old" movie "Terrorstorm".


Thank you for reading.

Happy debunking/truthing!

Truthers are...deniers?

At almost every major event for some years now, truthers and other conspiracy theorists have opposed and denied that things went down as "the media" claims it did. Examples of this are the Boston bombings, Sandy hook-shooting etc..

It's like they have a knee-jerk reaction to deny anything the mainstream media ("MSM") says, regardless of what it says.

How many of you would be willing to bet they would not claim that the next shooting we'll hear about in the news will be claimed to be some "false flag" to take away your rights in one way or another?

Apparently, many of them see the world in a totally different way those of us who don't think like that.

The human mind surely is amazing....

I'm not angry at those who genuinely believe in what they say normally. I do oppose liars and deceivers though.

Alex Jones is an example of such a deceiver. What's good is that even many truthers know this by now.


As an aside, it can be noted that some (certainly not all) truthers tend to lean towards "doubting" that the Holocaust actually happened, or at least as has been stated in our history books and, again, in the news...

Truthers - meticulous on some, non-questioning on others...

To make my point with this post, I will use a woman's speech as an example. I don't mean to so much to go after her, even if I criticize her here for sure. She's not alone in acting this way among truthers.

Barbara Honegger and her speech

Barbara Honegger has a 3-hour video on YouTube of a speech she held which some of you may have seen (I have actually). Her video is called "Behind the Smoke Curtain" and you can see it here. 3 hours and 5 minutes to be exact.

I admit that I learned some new things, especially in the first half (maybe more than half).

In this video Barbara discusses the crash of AA77 into the Pentagon, or rather, that she thinks it didn't do that and why she things so.

1st half of the video

The first half of the video is devoted to the details of what went down at the Pentagon. In this part, I learned some new details. Actually, I cannot recall them right now, but I learned some new things for sure.

She was pretty meticulous and detailed here. This is one point with this post (the meticulous part).

She did chose to bring forth some witnesses while not bringing up other witnesses. So, she deliberately skewed what people saw at the Pentagon to paint a picture. One might call this deception really.

You can check out many witnesses' statement + evidence of AA77 on Mark Roberts' site here.

2nd half of the video

In the second half of the video (or maybe last third or so), Barbara suddenly begins to discuss dual citizens, and specifically such dual citizens that are Americans and Israeli (according to her).

She lays the blame pretty much on them, or at the very least make them look suspect and only focus on them. This without basically any evidence that can prove they actually did anything to cause the destruction at the Pentagon.

In this part of the video, it's more speculation than anything else. (and seemingly an "attack" on "zionists")

She does not appear to question any of her own theories here, unlike how detailed she was in the first half or first two thirds. This is my second point with this post (being non-questioning).

Final thoughts

Truthers often act this way! They have some areas where they are very very detailed and really know a lot. I give them credit for that knowledge for sure.

but then they can put forth theories that they don't seem to scrutinize themself and accept as fact without supporting evidence. It can be them claiming there were no planes, military planes, switched planes, controlled demolitions etc..

A more consistent focus on detail had been desirable from truthers so they would also question their own theories and scrutinize them. There should be no pride in this! If they're wrong about some things, they should admit that (if needed) and change accordingly, as should us "debunkers"!

We're all people, take care!

Western media vs RT, PressTV and others

3rd of May 2015 was World Press Freedom Day and a world map was posted on Twitter among other places showing what the state of countries' press freedom is around the world. You can see the Twitter-post showing the map here .

On the map, one can take note of the press freedoms in Russia & Iran and compare with western countries in general. It's fairly obvious that western countries and the formerly mentioned countries Russia & Iran differ a lot when it comes to freedom of the press.

The reason I bring this up is because of how many truthers and other conspiracy theorists that complain about western media or often what they simply call "MainStream Media"(MSM). Often they also refer to Russia Today(RT), and in some cases PressTV from Iran(like Veterans Today for example).

Also, it's ironic how Julian Assange has been protected by countries like Russia, again considering the press freedom in Russia vs that of the West.

It's sad how Russia is not fully open and democratic. It has had such a long time to be able to transform and could become such a good country if it did, and maybe even join the EU. Russia is part of Europe and it's unfortunate with the latest tensions between Russia & Europe. Hopefully it can calm down in the near future.

Obviously, the worst situation for the press is in Syria and similar countries. It's disgusting what is going on there and how the press is attacked. To me it just further shows what an unjust conflict that is. It was a war at some point, but since a long time, it just seems like a stand-off and terror campaign against civilians. A Hell with no end in sight.

Why the Ground Zero fires lasted so long

An old newspaper article from November 2001 dealt with the efforts to fight the fire at Ground Zero. It brings up the firefighting efforts, the toxic chemicals and more.

2 paragraphs were extra interesting to me as it pertains to something that truthers have frequently brought up: why the fires lasted so long. Truthers often say the reason is thermite.

Fire experts in the article think different as I will quote now below:

It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.

Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.

It can be useful to be aware of this as opposed to the explanation that truthers often give. Actually I am not ruling out thermite, but I have not seen evidence that I think conclusive proves thermite was found, nor used. Thus, I am not totally convinced it was thermite that Jones & Harrit showed. Again, I am not ruling it out, I am just skeptical that it was actually thermite.

Further, I find the explanation showed here from the article (page 2 of that article is where the quote is in and I linked to page 2) in New York Times much more probable and logical. That fire experts say it also gives it more credibility in my view.

Credit to Ronald Wieck from Hardfire (and in my 9/11-group on FB: "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are an Inside Job!").

Truthers' narrative questions by Sam

In a group I have about 9/11 on Facebook ("9/11 conspiracy theories are an inside job!") a member, Sam Beeson, made a comment where he wondered what truthers' narrative are regarding 9/11 if I allow myself to interpret his words. He asks why truthers don't have a single story. Further he brings up a number of questions he thinks one almost has to ask truthers just to see where they are coming from. I thought his comment with these questions were so good that I wanted to make a blog post about it. I will share his comment with the questions in full below.

Sam Beeson's comment(by "page" he means my group):

The truth movement would be much more believable if they would at least agree on a single story. Instead, whenever a new truther comes to this page to argue, you have to ask them 20 questions to find out what kind of truther they are.

1. Are you an inside job, LIHOPer, or combination?

2. Were the planes that crashed into the WTC real with passengers? Real, without passengers? Military Drones? Holographic images? Combination?

3. Was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon real with passengers? Real without passengers? Military drone? Missile? Other.

4. Was Flight 93 real with passengers? Real without passengers? Drone? Missile? None of the above? Other?

5. Thermite? Nukes? Space laser? Other?

6. Who was behind it? Bush? Cheney? The gas companies? The CIA? A Middle Eastern country? Bankers? The Illuminati? Reptilian aliens? The New World Order? Combination? Other?

In all seriousness, if truthers could answer these questions BEFORE they start debating, it might make things a little easier for us to argue with them.

Fair questions?

What are truthers' view of a narrative regarding 9/11?

What kind of truther are you?

Sadly, there is a group that very often gets the blame in different variations that you could add to his point 6, but the point is still made, and he knows which I mean. I have a rule against bringing them up for that reason among others, otherwise I am sure he would have brought them up there too. and "other" covers that any way.


Here you got a view from a debunking perspective. and a little questionnaire to bring to a new truther when you meet him or her.

Why hasn't Gage made a model of WTC7?

Richard Gage is almost certainly the most well-known architect who voices doubts about what happened on 9/11 and whether the "official story" was correct or not.

Given that he's an architect, I assume he has access to pretty powerful computer programs used in constructing models of houses he's going to build, or at least did when he was active with that. I don't know if he still does that.

Yet, he has never, as far as I know, shown that he has ever made any attempt to make a model of WTC7 and see if he could theorize about what went wrong that way. Why?


Further, he of course is the founder and leader of the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Among the engineers, I know several of them are computer engineers actually. Not saying all of them are. How come none of them have done any simulation, at least one shown publicly so that many of us have seen it? I mean, that I don't know if any of them have made a simulation, but that it never got spread around so it reached me, but I have never heard one of them attempted this.

[edit: since I wrote this, I have heard that AE911T have posted models or simulations on their website, but not seen any]


If one is interested in the truth, as Gage and his organization obviously say they are, why don't they make a good model and simulation and try to make it similar to what we know about WTC7(which is less than we may wish)? I would be interested in seeing that, and I think it would show intellectual honesty to do that.

Looking forward to it...

85 cameras

What do they have to hide?

Many of us have heard claims of there being 85 cameras, which footage was taken by FBI, without releasing this footage. Supposedly they are from when AA77 hits Pentagon. So, why doesn't FBI release these videos? What do they have to hide? These are questions which have been repeated over and over in the past years.

I must admit that I didn't know which cameras these were or what they showed. I thought it was fair to ask them to be shown, as long as it would not mean any risk to the companies or organizations etc. who had the cameras. and of course it's really only "suspicious" if the footage from these cameras actually show something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon and the FBI withheld such information.

Information exists on these 85 videos, and several have been released

To my surprise, I saw a member of a Facebook-group I have about 9/11 post an archived link about these 85 videos (all are not from separate cameras). On the link, all 85 videos are listed with short information about each one. A caveat is that I did not count all of them to see that they were 85, but it seemed to be about 85 to me. Another caveat is that I cannot verify this information with another source, but the link shows documents in writing as pictures as well as the text with the information about each video.

If we assume that the information about the videos are correct, and that it is all 85 being written about on that link, then there really isn't much of a mystery there, and there is nothing of importance that we have not seen before, save for possibly one video or possibly group of images described at the end. That was the only one I have not seen myself at least. I don't know more information about that only video (or images) that shows something that I have not seen before. Would be interesting to know more about it. You can see the archived link about the 85 videos here.

I think it was the same member of my group (became unclear who had posted the first link in my group) who also posted 16 videos in a playlist on his youtube-channel. I do not know if all 85 videos are shown there, but I did see that the first youtube-link in that playlist appeared to be one video with copies just like it's described in the list over the 85 videos that one video was. To clarify, about 5 of the 85 videos are copies of another. I have not confirmed if it's the same one at this point though. It was one I had not seen before, but there was nothing new about the attack on that one.

You can see the playlist here, starting with the first video in the list.

What do the videos contain?

Turns out that several of the videos are not from the Pentagon, but from WTC actually. As I wrote above, some are copies (most are not). Many of them are tourist videos. Some are very short. Most of them show Pentagon after the attack has occured.

All of them were released as part of a FOIA request.

Osama admits he did 9/11

but first things first... His supposed denial of responsibility...

Denial

Some have said that Osama denied responsibility in the beginning, but few say that the source of that is Karachi Daily Ummat in Pakistan, a country which has not always seemed to be very pro-USA or pro-West. That was proven when Osama found and killed there if not before. Karachi Daily Ummat is "believed to have close connections to Islamic groups in Afghanistan" according to an archived link from Ananova you can read here. Also, the newspaper says it "submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies". So, how much faith would you put in that? Me personally, I don't put any faith in this at all.

"Confession-video"

Then in December, 2001 already, Pentagon released a video showing Osama bin Laden talk about the 9/11-attacks and what his expectations were, that Atta was in charge etc. as you can see here. I linked the whole 59-minute video there. Over half (the latter part of the video) is of outdoor scenes seemingly unrelated. But in this full video, you can see the first parts when Osama and others enter the room and sit down before they begin talking about 9/11. It has subtitles.

So, this obviously contradicts his supposed "denial", where he also supposedly said it was against Islam to kill innocents, which is true, but he had advocated that it was "OK" to kill civlians (even going so far as calling it a "duty") in statements prior to 9/11, such as an edict from February 22, 1998, as you can read (among others) in this link from PBS's "Frontline". If you search for "civilians" there, it's the 4th hit of 5.

Claiming responsiblity

Finally, in 2004, Al Jazeera showed a video sent to them and published the transcript of said video, which you can see by clicking "Al Jazeera" above.

Fox News reported on this saying he for the first time claimed responsibility for the attacks, and also said why. This video was done prior to the election in 2004, and was likely an attempt to affect the outcome. Fox's link can be seen as sort of a "summary" of the speech and maybe "easier to read", which is why I link that too.

Likewise, CNN reported on this video, which was very special in that Osama admitted guilt concerning 9/11 for the first time. CNN's article can also be seen as sort of a "summary" of his speech for those that don't want to read the whole transcript.

Conclusion

This clearly shows that Osama at least claimed responsibility for 9/11. That, in itself is not proof positive of having commited 9/11, but a strong circumstantial piece of evidence I would say.

Obviously, one has to be aware that the video was to some large extent propaganda and Osama obviously had several purposes with releasing the video. All he said should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still interesting to hear it from himself.

It's also good to have this information to show truthers so they see that Osama indeed admitted to 9/11, while his supposed "denial" is very much in question.