9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Dead Men Talking

Information

Dead Men Talking

We collect the most relevant evidence of government participation in the events of 9/11. Bring evidence here and discuss its truth and relevance!

Website: http://www.deanhartwell.com
Members: 7
Latest Activity: Jun 14, 2010

Read Dead Men Talking

This is the book that presents my case about 9/11

I would like to hear your thoughts.

The point of the book is to identify the best evidence of government conspiracy. I mention the Standard Operating Procedures of air defense and how they were not followed; I mention "blips" appearing on the screens of FAA employees and who had the authority and the power to put them there to confuse them; I mention warnings given to Bush Administration officials that were not followed. And a lot more.

I avoided the more controversial evidence such as what happened at the Pentagon. I feared that my thoughts on this subject and others like it would distract from the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that government agents acted on 9/11 to commit murder. If you tell a skeptic several ideas, it is a cinch they will attack the ideas with the least factual support and ignore the rest of what you say.

If you have thoughts about what hit the WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon and about cell phones, etc. please tell me.

Discussion Forum

Future Petitions to Ask People to Support New Investigation on 9/11

This group will collect the most relevant facts on the culprits of 9/11 to make it easy to put together new petitions and fact sheets.  It will also serve as the basis for essays which are especially…Continue

Tags: article, essay, investigation, facts, petition

Started by Dean Apr 11, 2010.

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Dead Men Talking to add comments!

Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 17, 2010 at 4:56pm
I do not account for the whereabouts of any airplane or its passengers because my research question is "What destroyed the World Trade Center?"

No plane of any sort could have destroyed the World Trade Center by crashing into it. That much is known.
Comment by Dean on April 16, 2010 at 9:54pm
OK, Tracy. Let's assume for the sake of argument nothing hit WTC2. How do you account for the whereabouts of Flight 175 and its passengers?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 16, 2010 at 11:48am
Corrected sentence: The theory that any object impacted WTC 2 fails to account for the lack of debris bouncing off the south face of the building.
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 16, 2010 at 11:32am
Dean,

About Occam's Razor, yes. But most people use a simplified version of Occam's Razor, and I'm not. The simplified version goes something like, "The simplest theory is probably true."

The sophisticated version of Occam's Razor is one that I adhere to. It goes something like, "The simplest theory that accounts for the observable data is probably true."

The theory that any object impacted WTC 2 fails to account for the lack of plane debris bouncing off the south face of the building. You might be able to generate a simple theory if you ignore this, but then you are outside of Occam's Razor.

The simplest theory might be that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System, but that doesn't take the retrograde motion of Mars into account, for instance.
Comment by Dean on April 16, 2010 at 10:36am
One of the reasons I formed this group was to explore what really happened. In my book I only state what I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. On issues in which I could not form a more likely theory than the official theory, I accepted the official theory for the sake of argument.

In the book, I said remote control was likely used to guide planes into the towers. Here I am keeping an open mind.

We have a good discussion going on WTC here. I welcome input from anyone interested.

Tracy, do you believe in Occam's Razor? This is the idea that the theory which raises the fewest assumptions is the right theory. Your comments seem to reflect this idea.
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 16, 2010 at 8:48am
Sandy,

We both agree that the 9:03 AM videos do not show a plane crash.
We attribute this to different reasons. You say the videos were altered.
I say the videos were genuine, but that they depict an image of a plane
instead of a real plane.

Your theory would require the alteration of a lot of camera people and editors.
My theory only needs one operator (the person who operated the projected
image machine) and a supervisor (because that's how things get done).

Do you see? Your story about a bunch of edited/altered video is a huge,
unwieldy conspiracy. My story involves only a few people, but requires advanced technology.

I don't have a problem imagining that advanced technology exists. I do have
a problem imagining all this video editing that your theory suggests.
The explosions look real to me. The plane looks plausible to me until it glides
into the WTC. No large object traveling a couple hundred miles per hour can hit
a steel building without bouncing back, which rules out any plane or any large flying object at 9:03 AM.
Comment by sandy rose on April 16, 2010 at 7:24am
thanks, Dean, these are good conversations to have.
if a person has already determined or been convinced
that 9/11 was an inside job, i don't get why they would still
believe the fairy tale about the hijackers with the boxcutters
and the supposed plane crashes, except that they saw it on
the tube. if 9/11 was an inside job, which most of us know it
surely was, then the fairy tale can't be true about hijacked planes.
it can't be both. i rule out any truth to the hijacker story because
of what the yoo ess has done after 9/11... wars, reducing civil
liberties, covering up evidence, etc etc etc. if the planes were
real, why not release all footage from the wtc surveillance? if the
hijackers were real, then it wasn't an inside job. to me those two
things cannot possibly go together.

how we know which videos were authentic is a dang good
question, and still being hashed today. and even our video
experts don't agree on which things were real or faked. what
we have to go by is what we were shown on tee vee. we saw
many times the second supposed plane hit, from various angles,
and tho a couple of them look realish in regular motion, when
slowed down they don't look like what a real plane crashing
into a building would look like. the videos that have been
slowed down frame by frame and studied by many are the
same videos the nooze showed us many, many times.
as far as i know the first hit shot has only been shown
twice on tee vee, correct me if i'm wrong, people, on the
naudet doc 9/11 which i believe was shown 6 months after
9/11 and again 5 years later. that to me is another reason
to think that shot was real, and they didn't show that over
and over because even those morons know it doesn't look at
all like an airliner hitting the tower, so the less we see of that
one the better. that's where Rosalee and her work come into
the picture, and the shots she worked with, and then others
after her, were the naudet doc shots, as aired on tee vee, twice.
that can be verified just by watching the naudet snuff film. same
same.
that first hit shot, i say, if they were going to fake that shot
also, why not make it at least look like a freakin airliner? to
the average joe or josephine, the second hit shots at least look
like regular planes flying into the tower. our video experts have
done great work on proving that they were not real. but the first
hit naudet video, that doesn't even look like an airliner, which
to me is a good indication that the object was real.
What Happened, i don't get yet what you actually think
about the planes/no planes. you say you're not convinced
that the videos are fake, but that they depict a fake plane?
how can they be genuine and fake at the same time?
and do you think that the second hit shots depict a real
plane? i appreciate your comments, i'm just confused as to
what you really think.
again, i believe the first hit video was real but not an
airliner but that all of second hit shots were fake.
and Dean, one more thing, i've heard a bunch of other
truthers say that yeah, 'we' have enough proof on other
aspects of 9/11 and that the plane thing isn't necessary
for the 'case', i disagree with that and think that the fakery
(of second hit shots) is absolutely the key to the whole
damn thing. i think it has already been proven, the info on
fakery is out there, and that proving video fakery also proves
inside job and media involvement.
i would like to see Mr. Fetzer get in on this conversation,
and others also.
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 15, 2010 at 3:02pm
I've looked at the evidence that claims that the 9:03 AM videos are fake, and I'm not convinced by them. On the contrary, the videos appear to be perfectly genuine to me.

ONLY they depict a fake plane with real explosions.

One other point, explosions can happen without explosives.
Two different things.
Comment by Dean on April 15, 2010 at 2:27pm
To Sandy and Tracy,
I do not claim expertise on this topic. In my book, I had already accumulated enough evidence of government criminal activity through other facts on 9/11 such that I stipulated to the official story on the planes hitting WTC. It was a matter of not wanting to blow the "case" when I could not advance it further.

Anyway, I do not believe the buildings fell because of any plane crashes. Some type of explosives were used - there were plenty of opportunities for conspirators to plant them and the fires would not have been sufficient to take the buildings down.

I like what you guys are saying. What I am trying to do is ask the right questions. Here is one we need to address before we go much further:

How do we know what videos of the WTC crashes are authentic?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 15, 2010 at 12:04pm
WebFairy says a lot of things, most of which turn out not to be true.

The explosions in the Naudet shot appear NOTHING like what would
occur in the case of a plane crash or the crash of anything else.

All of the available videos of 9:03 AM fail to depict a plane crash.
It doesn't mean all the videos were fake. It means there wasn't
a plane crash.

The nano-thermite crew want you to believe that NOT ONLY
was there plane crashes and hijackings, but that the US government
allowed them to happen and that individuals connected with the
Bush administration allowed the WTC to be filled to the brim with
welding materials (thermite). I don't think so. Thermite is the dumbest
idea. Thermite is not a timed explosive. Thermite is not an explosive.
Stupid, stupid thermite.
 

Members (6)

 
 
 

© 2024   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service