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."

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.

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!

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...

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.