Thursday, 27 May 2010

911 WAS an Inside Job: Proof versus Speculation

911 WAS an Inside job.

This is not mere speculation. It is proven fact.

Debunkers and defenders of the official 911 story imply that the "conspiracy theorists" have no basis to make this claim. However, the hard science has proven the case.

From the physical evidence we find at the World Trade Centre site we KNOW 911 must have involved inside help.

Why ? Because it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to find tons of melted steel, chemical traces of thermitic materials, the actual remains of high tech military explosives, and to see the freefall collapse of a steel framed building, WITHOUT employing incendiary or explosive devices.

The forensic material here represents hard SMOKING GUN evidence of the explosive demolition of these buildings.

On the other hand, the official 911 narrative deliberately avoids all of this damning forensic proof. The NIST computer simulations that form the "backbone" of the WTC investigation are built upon unverified and flawed speculation - especially in the case of WTC7 where we find that their collapse simulations diverge substantially with what was seen.

The key point to recognise here is that the computer modelling data NIST used to create their simulations has never been independently checked. These simulations may have the accuracy of a cartoon animation for all we know. No one can be sure. Consequently their simulations, that do not match with the video of the collapses, must be considered unconvincing and unproven hypotheticals- fanciful speculation in the face of the forensic proof of foul play presented by critics of official story.

Moreover, there are so many nonsensical and contradictory items appearing in the NIST version of the WTC collapses that it is obvious the official account constitutes a cover-up. Of particular note are the outright LIES highlighted by David Ray Griffin in this essay where he explains "Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False".

911 WAS an Inside job. This is not speculation, it is fact.

Everyone must be made aware of the 911 evidence so that a real criminal investigation can be launched. If we accept the official lies we'll never see an end to the War on Terror ...

[Note: A criminal investigation should start with those who lied under oath at the 911 Commission, those who testified behind closed doors (Bush and Cheney), and with those at NIST who are involved in covering up clear evidence of Treason. ]

By Spookypunkos

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, May 27th, 2010.]

6 comments:

steven andresen said...

spook,

I am sympathetic to your argument, that the one theory explains the evidence better than the other.

You have a problem, I think, in that you are assuming that arguments that show one explanation in better than another actually make a difference,...that they actually change people's minds, and that those changed minds lead to action on their part to change the world in some way.

I want to argue, to change your mind, ...despite the irony...that such arguments in general don't change minds and that changed minds do not often bring about efforts to change the world.

I think in this case you're argument is fighting against the widely held and strongly held onto assumptions that the government can do no wrong.

I know that the assumption is that the government is not the solution, instead, it is the problem. So, one would think that at least some large number of people would believe that the government could not do anything right.

However, those same people do not question whether the military and intelligence services do wrong. For those people, that part of the government can do no wrong and it is just the truth-telling of that part of the government that the 9-11 truth movement wants to question.

The right-wingers, I suspect, are more invested in the military/intelligence part of the government than the left.

So, when the libertarians and right-wingers smash up the government, they mean to attack the economic and social policies which they see impinging on the perogatives of corporate power.

So, specifically, the 9-11 truth movement questions just the truthiness of that part of government that the right wing, libertarians, and the corporations are committed to defending without question.

But, I have a more general argument. The 9-11 truth movement believes that it can question the government's position by coming up with evidence and arguments when, I believe, most peoiple are swayed more by authority than by such tactics.

That is, if the Pope says it, there are no arguments or evidence that anyone not the Pope could come up with to sway catholics off what the Pope said. This is the way of authority.

In our case, people are just going to believe what the President says no matter what the evidence is against his claims because these people don't have the time or skills to think otherwise.

Don't you think that the problems for the 9-11 people are something like this?

SpookyPunkos said...

Yes, I think the problems for the 911 truth community are very close to what you describe.

I think the lack of a "conspiracy inclusive" education, a lack of inspiration and apathy (apathy born of an obsession with trivialities aided by a lack of education) makes it hard to get things going.

We are in a battle versus mainstream thinking.

Part of the education process therefore, is to "communicate" or rather "market" the importance of these crimes. We are selling logical (powerful) ideas and issues in relation to truth and justice. Our advantage is we have the hard science on our side (which is actually very significant) and the goal of helping shape a better society in terms of shaking up the establishment and ending the War on Terror.

Pushing these sorts of things is merely difficult, but not impossible.

Consider this Bill Hicks video on JFK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Fl9ZVJ7B8

Someone like Hicks today would be dynamite.

I can imagine when a few charasmatic individuals begin to really make some very big waves (providing inspiration). Perhaps a politican, celebrity, scientist willl speak up and capture people's imagination. Already there are a number of individuals in the media "spotlight" pushing for truth- notably the architect, Mr Gage, the film makers of Loose Change and a host of other critics in the Alternative Press.

You should also note that more and more people are ditching their mainstream news and turning over to people like Alex Jones and Mike Rivero. And you don't have to be a genius to pick up on their arguments either. These guys push a lot of information in a very charasmatic way.

However, having said that, a military coup might also get things rolling in terms of seeing a faster change in the status quo. If NIST scientists and former government officials + a few media owners and neocon stooges were taken into military custody in relation to 911 that'd be very helpful.

At present the more people that know the basic facts, the more shots we have at landing individuals that can really make a difference. Progress is fairly slow, but, with videos like Loose Change, and activists of every sort, many people have woken up already....

I agree that part of the problem is we are working on people's pre-programmed minds. The good news is that they are open to re-programming (or rather, altering).

One thing, if we can see problems, then we can tap the solution to them. It all starts with education. If you can explain the issue to me, then we can imagine a solution - or identify effective strategies already in play.

I have a few posts lined up that deal specifically with this issue you raise.

Thanks for your comment !

steven andresen said...

spook,

Beyond having physical evidence in hand, as you claim is had, there has to be a clear understanding of the audience for the 9-11 truthers arguments.

With all the evidence that many lawyers get showing the innocence or guilt of various parties, they still can't get convictions sometimes. It's not a sure thing. And, the argument depends on knowing the nature of their audience.

You said something, which I am puzzled about,

"... a military coup might also get things rolling in terms of seeing a faster change in the status quo. If NIST scientists and former government officials + a few media owners and neocon stooges were taken into military custody in relation to 911 that'd be very helpful."

What did you mean to say here? Do you expect or scent a military coup in our future? And, are you imagining this to be a good thing?

I once heard a local radio person make the argument that for many yras, maybe an unknowable length of time, there has been a secret, hidden war between various factions of the shadow government. It's sort of an iceberg analogy. What politics happens on the surface is only a small part of what there really is below the surface.

This person claimed that much of what explains the behavior of our politicians is based on the turns and fortunes of the various factions battleing in secret.

Such an analysis would lead one directly to 9-11. It was a major event in that hidden war because it came to the surface and effected so much of what then happened in public.

Based on this kind of analysis, one might never know when the 'military' or our 'intelligence' services might take over because they would do it secretly without the public having much evidence of it happening.

Xymphora believes, as I understand his view, that we have already been taken over by the military back during the Kennedy administration.

Others might argue that the Bush elections were all staged events to maintain control.

This is just to say that one has to think that a military coup won't just be a bunch of shooting in the White House and some colonel coming on the television to tell us what's what.

However, more importantly, would a military coup be any good for us? You said that such a change might involve the arresting and prosecution of 9-11 insider suspects? Well, if the military was interested in investigating the 'inside job' angle, then maybe there would be some movement in that regard.

However, it's more likely that the military juntists would be interestted in arresting and disappearing the 9-11 truth movement activists as basic trouble makers.

What's more, I think that the military itself might be where we'd find quite a few of the inside job muckety mucks. They would not be interested in seeing any investigation of 9-11 that might lead back to themselves. This is why we have seen no work being done now on that issue, at a time when most people would say we had a Democracy.

Otherwise, a military coup would be in no one's interest except those people who otherwise could not shut people like the 9-11 truthers, the tea baggers, the left, etc, up.

SpookyPunkos said...

Steven,

Although explaining the 911 evidence to people has been complicated by an opposing view point, as per your legal argument analogy, the hard facts of the case really do make a huge difference.

Too many people can understand the basic science and explain the issues to others. The forensic proof from the WTC buildings, that I push here, trumps the continued disinformation.

People are waking up to the fact that there is a propaganda effort underway (NIST reports have been clearly debunked), so that the work of trolls and authority figures become less and less effective.

As for my quip about a coup. I was not thinking so much about a longterm dictatorship, rather a short term action that might be taken to "restore" some sanity.

Not everyone, or every commander, in the US Armed Forces is corrupt. Recently the former head of the US Army War College came out and said that many US military personel were very angry about 911 having been an inside (Mossad) job.

No doubt many have seen Loose Change and visited the AE911truth.org website. Anyone in uniform should be concerned about 911 because it is the reason they are all sacrificing themselves in the wars overseas.

So, although much behind the scenes arguing probably does occur within the mafia running the show, there is still an element within the Government/military that will try to expose the game.

In the past I have heard reports about high ranking Generals forced to resign because they were making moves agains the Neocons during the Bush Administration. The lesson here was to be more cautious since the many higher ups in the military want to keep things quiet.

However, given the right opportunity, with enough "grass roots" support, it remains possible that some Generals may speak out publically or take other action. After all, it is very difficult to do nothing when your troops are being killed because of a deception that initially murdered 3000 civilians (people you are charged to protect under the service oath).

Anyway, I think it more likely that we will see action first occuring from the civilians currently pushing for truth.

Spook

steven andresen said...

spook,

The the principle that the civilian government, elected by the people, is in charge, instead of any military or intelligence service, is very important to this country and one of the things that, supposedly, distinguishes us from your common banana country.

I understand the military has opinions about political affairs, but, by law and tradition they should keep quiet about them.

It's sort of the basic, "don't ask, don't tell" principle.

SpookyPunkos said...

I should clarify my thinking a bit more here.

I would imagine actions by the military would be in accordance to their oaths to defend the country against "threats foreign and domestic".

I'm sure generals that arrest suspects involved in crimes like 911, and arresting present day political heads that have aided in a cover-up, would consult secretly with JAG officers.

I'd think they would have the Law in mind as you say- the US does have such an upstanding tradition.

However, when the system is so obviously corrupt and engaging in illegal action, like during the Bush Administration (but also during the Obama years too), military Generals could step in with the Law on their side.

Bush and Cheney should have been frog marched out of the White House over Iraq and Torture. Members of their Administration should have been charged with Perjury and obstruction of justice in terms of their 911 testimony. The pretense of being a Lawful President, and Vice President is no defence against their criminal behaviour.

Perhaps "coup" was too strong a word. Imagine justified military action. Sometimes you need muscle to make sure things happen when it comes to dealing with some of these mafia fellows who can call upon killers and extortionists to defend themselves.

Anyway, I still think the rising tide of awareness by the civilian population will eventually bring about dynamic action.