9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.

 

 

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ&feature=youtu.be

 

 

Views: 333

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think this video is a rather sophisticated psy op disinfo piece.

 

I notice on the economy website zerohedge.com they have a posting by "George Washington" long-time disinfo agentt where they include about the last few minutes of this video where the caring loving psychologists tell us their truth, that is, that people who cannot and will not even discuss the possibility that the official story is a lie and a coverup are employing the psychological defense mechanism known as denial. 

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/%3F-older-posts-psychologists-...

While this is true, the placement of this part about the loving caring psychologists at the end of this video is brilliant and brilliantly dishonest while its basic message content is true.

 

The A&E911Truth makers of this video want to keep everyone focused on those people in today's population who are purportedly "psychologically impaired" and unable to accept the truth of those on the video who told them the "truth" and "reality" of 9-11.   

 

But you are to see, of course, that those of you who are able to question the official story of 9-11 truth, like all the good architects and engineers in the video, are psychologically well and are able to seek "the truth" of all the good architects and engineers in the video.  

 

I think the logical fallacy used here is called Appeal to Emotion.

 

  1.  

1.Favorable emotions are associated with X [accepting the truth to be what the architects and engineers in the video say].

2.Therefore, X is true.

 (The "favorable emotion" is that you are psychologically well and healthy to question 9-11 story.)

 There are probably many thousands of us out here who have questioned the official story of 9-11 since day 1  or for at least as many years as the thermite gang, but who also do not accept as "truth" and "reality" the "9-11 truth orthodoxy" of the thermite gang.   But they want everyone to focus on and discuss thermite gang "truth" versus "psychologically impaired" total deniers.

 

This is all just more of their corralling maneuvers, creating/defining the orthodox accepted paradigm,  and run-out-the-clock maneuvers.   This is only a brief analysis of one small part of this entire video.

Jeannon,

 

Why is this a disinfo piece, other than Steven Jones claiming that the nanoThermate being explosive, strictly based upon its extreme nano sized particles. He has, surely, not proven his case, as even Niels Harritt is strongly advocating the use of nanothermate and at least high explosives in combination, just as I have advocated from the birth of my most extensive scientifically based, hard core, research, but me advocating the use of mini nukes, with most ample evidence as clearly stated in my 27 hours of interviews with Jim Fetzer.

Everything in this new A&E video is in line with my research except the Steven Jones unsupported and unproven statement about explosive nature of the nanothermate being strong enough to blow the buildings and concrete and steel to smitherenes. I hope you can present something to replace all of this well researched evidence and not just a feeling that much of it is off track.

What is the correct track. You, not being a Scientist, and not having a replacement explanation, or maybe you do have one that I am not yet aware of, at least to my knowledge, could make you look a bit overly bold to deny all of this video's most excellent evidence...

This is an extremely well done video which I strongly support, from a scientific method point of view.

Please explain why you are fighting this video's content.

All others who do not agreen with the vast, vast majority of this video presentation, please explain where you are coming from and exactly how you can support your rejections of this video's content...

 

Please respond as to what you think is the correct explanation(s) for 911 WTC site...

 

Chuck Boldwyn

I see the video as being right on the money, even the Phychologist's explanations and they are not accusing people as being "impaired". Most people simply are uninformed, almost everyone I meet, everywhere, all the time. They need to be made aware as it will never happen from the MSM, which is all they view and listen too.

Most people need to be just confronted, physically, and directed to the information, either on a handout dvd or internet sites, like AmericanFreePress.net, as I have recently directed a Zionist Jew to do recently at a Sales Convention I attended.

 

I have a lot more to say about 911 the next time I appear on Jim Fetzer's show, hopefully, after I get a dust sample and complete the unique analyses I have planned for the sample via chemistry and physics experiments...

Jeannon Kralj said:

I think this video is a rather sophisticated psy op disinfo piece.

 

I notice on the economy website zerohedge.com they have a posting by "George Washington" long-time disinfo agentt where they include about the last few minutes of this video where the caring loving tell us their truth, that is, that people who cannot and will not even discuss the possibility that the official story is a lie and a coverup are employing the psychological defense mechanism known as denial. 

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/%3F-older-posts-psychologists-...

While this is true, the placement of this part about the loving caring psychologists at the end of this video is brilliant and brilliantly dishonest while its basic message content is true.

 

The A&E911Truth makers of this video want to keep everyone focused on those people in today's population who are purportedly "psychologically impaired" and unable to accept the truth of those on the video who told them the "truth" and "reality" of 9-11.   

 

But you are to see, of course, that those of you who are able to question the official story of 9-11 truth, like all the good architects and engineers in the video, are psychologically well and are able to seek "the truth" of all the good architects and engineers in the video.  

 

I think the logical fallacy used here is called Appeal to Emotion.

 

  1.  

1.Favorable emotions are associated with X [accepting the truth to be what and engineers in the video say].

2.Therefore, X is true.

 (The "favorable emotion" is that you are psychologically well and to question 9-11 story.)

 There are probably many thousands of us out here who have questioned the official story of 9-11 since day 1  or for at least as many years as the thermite gang, but who also do not accept as "truth" and "reality" the "9-11 truth orthodoxy" of the thermite gang.   But they want everyone to focus on and discuss thermite gang "truth" versus "psychologically impaired" total deniers.

 

This is all just more of their corralling maneuvers, creating/defining the orthodox accepted paradigm,  and run-out-the-clock maneuvers.   This is only a brief analysis of one small part of this entire video.

Chuck, on the surface this video contained a lot of factual information.  It was well produced.  However, as I said in just analyzing the part at the end with the psychologists, that was totally geared to people who can not and will not even discuss at all 9-11.  The psychologists told everyone what many of us already know, that people are employing a psychological defense mechanism known as denial.  That is what keeps them psychologically comfortable and they do not want to risk being psychologically uncomforatble by exploring the event and seeing that we have been lied to and that, at the very least, there was a huge sophisticated cover-up by virtually all of the top people in government and politics and even academia, and certainly all of the media.  I think that part of the video implied, though did not state overtly, that people who cannot face the truth need to be dealt with gently by a professional to get them to be able to face and accept the truth and realize that they will be able to stay strong and steady doing that.  It implied that people who just refuse to question 9-11 and won't talk about it are somehow weak or not strong or impaired whereas we people that the architects and engineers for 9-11 truth are smart and psychologically strong and stable.

 

I think A&E folk are about 10 years late in all of this.  Why did it take the As and Es more than six years to see that Building 7 was apparently a "controlled demolition."  For heavens sake, we had the video of it going down since September of 2001.  The video is the strongest "evidence" of that.

 

These people have deliberately used the foggy notion of "explosive nanothermite" to make people think things that they imply but are careful not to state outright.  Throughout the video, they claim that there were massive numbers of steel beams and such that were carted away and sold off to China.  We have no proof or evidence of how much steel was carted off.  Others say the steel was pulverized and blown away just like the concrete. Others stated how short and small the rubble pile was so how could it have contained all those steel beams.  The video also kept harping on the "evidence" of "rivers" of "molten metal" found up to two weeks after, but it was all eyewitness evidence and it was not examined or quantified or verified at all.  Dr. Jones did some dodgy things with photos in his early papers regarding "molten metal."   They kept implying thermite or nanothermite explained the molten metal because it is a substance that does get hot enough to melt steel and metals.  That just is not very scientific to me.  And there was not much in the way of what we could call real "evidence."  The video kept stating that they were the ones who were about "hard science" but they were vague and noncommittal of several major issues and the "evidence" they touted is not what lawyers or scientists call "evidence."

 

I just judge the whole effort by the fruit it bears.  Where are they trying to lead people now.  Where are they going.  The "Toronto Hearings" do not officially claim to be leading to any particular next step, though some have said that they plan to go to the International Criminal Court maybe to try to the independent investigation.

 

As for nukes,  Dennis Cimino stated his reason on a recent radio show with Dr. Fetzer why he did not think they were used.  I looked a short while into that Russion person named Khalezad and he seemed "hoaky" to me.  He had to leave Russia without any of his papers to prove he held the insider nuclear job in the military he claims as his base of expertise.  It just seemed shaky to me.  Also I understant nukes would have to be placed in the bottom of the towers and I do not think the "bathtub" or "slurry wall" could have withstood nuclear explosions.  Also the Towers were destroyed from the top down. 

 

The term "controlled demolition" was another big phrase and concept continually hyped within the video.  They never define the term and it could have several levels of meaning.  It could mean a demolition or destruction caused and controlled by man without reference to what agents effected the destruction.  It could mean a "classic controlled demoltion" where inner core columns are blown out first and from the bottom up and probably including the cutting thermite.  Or the term could include the classic kinds of "explosives" with or without thermite and maybe not taking out the inner columns or bottom out first.    But the whole video just wanted everyone to assume the second understanding but the photographic "evidence" just does not jive with that.

 

Again, I do not believe anything this whole group has done has really moved us toward truth and justice.  They have distracted everyone for years with "nano thermite" and never said plainly that it could not have accounted for the buildings being blown to kingdom come. 

 

Lastly, all of the many co-opted 9-11 truth websites and groups and people are all on the side of Dr. Jones and company and they all seem to be somehow not wanting anything ever to be mentioned about "Zionists" or the Mossad.


"Everything in this new A&E video is in line with my research except the Steven Jones unsupported and unproven statement about explosive nature of the nanothermate being strong enough to blow the buildings and concrete and steel to smitherenes. I hope you can present something to replace all of this well researched evidence and not just a feeling that much of it is off track."

 

I would agree with this.  But one thing that does disturb me is that Jones really has always proposed that the thermite also did the explosive part of the job, it did not.

 

What probably happened was the building was prepped with the thermite first then about 50 minutes later the demolition sequence with the mini nukes occured.  That is probably close to your research, or something like that.  They do not want to listen to the details of your research.  

I recall that there is some place in the video where someone states that thermite is often employed in "controlled demolitions".  I have never heard anyone describe how exactly thermite is used.  Is it just plain thermite, not nanofied thermite?  Is is separately placed in the building and not joined to other substances or agents?  Is it placed only at certain places and not in the exact same places where the explosives are placed.  What is the detonation sequence when thermite is involved in a demolition.  Are the thermite charges detonated first and how many minutes or how much time before the explosive charges are placed?

 

I think it is very odd that no one has ever explained exactly how thermite is normally used in a demolition.

 

"What probably happened was the building was prepped with the thermite first then about 50 minutes later the demolition sequence with the mini nukes occured. That is probably close to your research, or something like that. They do not want to listen to the details of your research."

 

I do not believe Chuck ever even described how thermite may have been used.  I do not know on what practical evidence or records Thoth bases the "5o minutes" estimate.    Shouldn't "what probably happened" be referenced to what actually happened in past demolitions and how thermite was used in those?

 

As I said just about everything in the video is technically true. I just think it is a bit odd that ten years after the event, they are addressing the video to those people who totally deny anything but the official story.  That is NOT where the controversies lay.  But the video couches the discussiong and controversy in very old passe stuff.  The controversy we all experienced with our friends and family deniers happened way back when we got started in our quest for 9-11 truth.  We have moved way beyond that and most of us are not wasting any more time trying to "wake up" those people.  They are happy.  Let them be.

Jeannon,

 

actually, you are correct about the 50 minutes, that is my own conjecture.  I believe Chuck has stated that thermite plus mini nukes did the whole job, (it took BOTH to complete this job), but the 50 minutes part I was adding in.  The reason I think that is that I think what they actually did on 911 is load up the towers with both.  Then at the time of the "hits of the planes" (which never occured in reality), they exposed the thermite to the steel core columns (I'm not a demolition experts so I don't know how they did that), and this caused the "lathering" and other by products like "white smoke" that Chuck has detailed from his chemical expertise.  Then on TV we saw the towers "falling down or collapsing" about 50 minutes after the planes hit, so I hypothesize this is when the heavy explosives (mini nukes) were detonated in about a 10 sec sequence from top down.

 

So yes, I was adding in some of my own conjectures to explain the evidence.  Sometimes in science we have to hypothesize and not just relie on the authorities.

Well, I am glad that we have a little discussion again going on here.

 

Thoth, I think it is fine that you say "50 minutes" and you do state your good reasons, but still I am not able to find a description of how thermite works or is employed in past demolitions.  What is the thermite protocol in a controlled demolition.  The video indicated it has often been used as part of the demolitions of big buildings in the past.  We need to see what that looked like and then see how what we observe about the WTC twin tower demolitions conforms to or deviates from those past records and uses. 

 

Chuck has not stated the particular kind of information I am trying to get at here.  Chuck to my knowledge never conjectured as to the "steps", times, sequence of actions in his thermite plus nukes scenario.  To me having the information I was seeking about how exactly thermite was used in past demolitions would be a good way for Chuck to better "sell" his thermite plus nukes theory.  It would seem that to support, realistically, the use of thermite in a demolition theory, one would have to at least make plausible sounding how it could have been or maybe was used at the WTC towers to make it conform to the videos we have.  I like everything to plausibly first conform to the video "evidence" we have, not to the dust studies and findings over the years  of any group.  What is there in the videos that suggest thermite as part of the demolition?  Thoth, you give your reasons to some extent, but still there is the big missing body of info that should be available to all of us.

 

I hope I have explained what I am getting at and what I think is a big missing blank part of all these discussions of thermite plus nukes.

Jeannon

 

you are totally correct.  This does not concern me, scientific method is always a work in progress and we get closer and closer to truth but never there.  I'm sure researchers will get more of these details as time progresses, but for now, I believe Chuck has best explained the available evidence so far, way better than Jones, Wood, etc.  His is the most comprehensive, scientific based one so far.

Do you think the perpe-traitors would leave the leadership of the "truth" movement to chance? And just where are the so-called leaders taking us anyway? (Chapter 9 - The Controlled Opposition).

 

How much is it worth to you to finally learn the truth?

 

9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera
The perpetrators don't give much weight to the truth movement in essence because though many people in America (via various polls, most notably CNN) suspect a cover-up, it is deeply disturbing to confront the fact that the real enemy was indeed in the top tiers of government and agencies. There is indeed sufficient evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, yet at the time we felt such powerful emotion and indignation that it was easy to accept what was told. A remarkable job was done to influence almost every facet of media, and after 10 years despite how close we get to the truth, it won't set us free because there is another objective at hand that the 9/11 attacks facilitated. 
yet overall, I found this piece to be informative. 

hi Margot,

    thanks for your piping up, and i hereby remove you from the

non-participation chart.  good to hear your thoughts, keep em coming,

please!   

      yes, deeply disturbing is right on the munny.  no matter how many

years we go thru without the slugs being bagged, the disturbance never

gets any lesser, does it?

    i am glad to hear from you, would dig to see a pic of your face and stuff,

glad you have checked in, and  don't be a stranger!!

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service