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 sandy rose on April 24, 2010 at 5:28pm
Jim, thank you for your comment! i missed your imput, sir.
no matter that it takes me a while to get what you meant,
it's just great to hear from you again. !!!

Dean, i don't know what it proves, except that a bunch
of Muslims in Afghanistan did not likely do this, but notice
the nice neat lengths of steel ('m guessing) that were still
there in the pile of rubble..... i guess i have seen before in
conversation that they made the lengths of steel or whatever
cut to just the right length to cart them off to what was it,
China? (that may be incorrect, and i have no claim to any
thing scientific, i leave that to the big boys, and girls...........)
and, i would feel distraught if i left out the not nice
fact that Architects and Engineers bend over backwards
to avoid no planer lines of thought...................for they
have dissed no planers on their otherwise neato petition....
i mention that only because i recommended their video...

i don't disagree with Jim Fetzer often/ever, tho sometimes
i need the dick and jane version of events.....
(Jim's way smarter than me...._)
Jim, do you mean that we have proven via video that
what the offishal story said was not true, but it's not enough
to bag the bad boys on?
so what needs to be done to establish a reasonable doubt,
or have no planers done that one already?
don't 'we' have enough already to vouch that the 'offishal'
story about 9/11 could not have happened the way 'they' said?
and what if anything else do 'we' need to carry that further?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 24, 2010 at 3:24pm
How does your comment particularly apply to the conversation?
Comment by James H. Fetzer on April 24, 2010 at 2:32pm
Just a comment on the meaning of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". When an hypothesis or theory h can provide a better explanation of the evidence e than any available alternative h', then it is the preferable hypothesis. When the evidence has "settled down", then the preferable hypothesis is also acceptable, in the tentative and fallible fashion characteristic of science. This is analogous to having a strongest suspect in a criminal investigation, given the available evidence, but not having enough for an arrest, trial and conviction. That is the difference, roughly speaking, between preferable and acceptable. Unlike the situation in science, once a conviction has been obtained, it is difficult, if not impossible, to change. But in science, old hypotheses can always be rejected on the basis of new evidence. When an hypothesis is acceptable and no alternative explanation is reasonable, then it has been established "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Comment by Dean on April 24, 2010 at 2:22pm
Here is a good link on the North Tower Explosion (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)

As a layperson, I see what appears to be dust or non-solid particles flying from the building. I also agree that the official investigation of 9/11 focused on possible causes of the collapse but little on the observation of collapse itself.

Who agrees with me on these points?
If these points are true, what cause of "collapse" does the evidence point to, if not prove?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 24, 2010 at 7:58am
Thanks, Sandy. I must have viewed the North Tower explosion and dustification a thousand times by now.

I have something to add, since you all seem very receptive. Watch the explosion again, and watch how slowly and even gently the building explodes. You might be shocked to hear me call it a gentle explosion, but I'm serious.

The rate of expansion of the dust cloud has everything to do with the velocity of the particles of dust. They weren't moving very fast, perhaps 30 feet per second at most. The explosion was HUUUUUGE but not that fast.

If you want to double check me, google any military explosion. It happens so fast, you have to slow down the tape to see the explosion. The gentle explosion of the North Tower was much, much slower than a military explosion.

Do you agree with me on this?
Comment by sandy rose on April 24, 2010 at 6:47am
ok, not sure the link will work, just search you
tube, and then North Tower Exploding.
Comment by sandy rose on April 24, 2010 at 6:32am
thanks, more good comments.
yes, it is not just polite to continue conversations even
when we disagree on details, it's essential. and i like to think
the point is more to share viewpoints and hash them over,
even tho they've been hashed around the block ten times
already, not to make other people see it our way.
that said, i disagree about not deliberately misleading
us, i think that was the whole entire purpose of the whole
event. if you look at the tee vee videos from 9/11 morning,
while the story is still unfolding, they have already decided
that hijacked airliners have flown into the towers and that
this is a terrorist act. wow, that was fast. no need for
investigation here, the nooze media has it all bagged up.
and remember how quick those 19 hijackers were up
there on the screen? gotta have a face on the pretend enemy. course
they put all kinda faces to em, just to drum up the hate.
and try to make someone else look guiltier than they do.
in my book the top of mainstream nooze media could not
get more guilty. and they've covered it up ever since, not
to mention kept all the war talk to their liking, etc.

and the lack of surprise from the reporters amazed me.
'oh my.' oh my. OH MY????? oh my. and as the
towers were destroyed they acted like it was another house
fire or something. the sheer terror and hugeness should
have had even a trained reporter freaking a bit out.
also, i forget at the mo who did the research on this,
probly on 9/11 Octopus or September Clues series, both (all)
of which are great videos to easily search......most of the 'witness'
folks who did the reporting about planes, etc. were in one
way or another news media bigwigs or their relatives. oh my!

also, yeah, good point about the turning to dust wtc towers,
when i get back upstairs to find the link i'll send a you tube
video, i believe it's called 'north tower exploding", that shows
the tower being violently blown up with stuff shooting in all
directions. so that is a bit different than just turning to dust,
and nicely cut chunks to be easily carted off to wherever.
which by the way we also have them by the nads on,
destroying evidence in a crime. i believe that was still a no no.
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 23, 2010 at 3:20pm
The original reports are somehow more valid than the 9/11 Commission Report?

No, not one bit, except for what we can glean about the historical record of what they were thinking.

Why not? Because it was advanced technology, the witnesses and newsbroadcasters did not have the words to describe the phenomena.

Except: unbelievable, incredible, impossible, unheard of

Nobody could believe their own eyes and ears because what they were witnessing was magic to them (i.e. sufficiently advanced technology).

Analogy: Imagine you go back to the year 1000 A.D. and shoot somebody to death in a small village in rural England. If you were to be given the task of determining the mode of death, do you care what the villagers say happened (in terms of possibly being an accurate description)? No, because they don't know what they need to know in order to describe the situation. They don't know what a gun is, or bullets, or what a bullet wound looks like. Given what they do know, they might come up with any number of ridiculous reasons how the person was killed, but every one of them would be false, except by unreasonable chance.

Conclusion: We should pay attention to the news reports, but very carefully analyze them for editorial comment. If they say the building "collapsed", for instance, you can accept their testimony and analyze it for content as long as you fully realize that the building did not collapse and that no amount of saying it did makes it so.

The buildings were fuming and smoking for a while and then turned into dust. After they turned into dust, most of the dust fell to the ground. The buildings did not collapse. Saying the buildings collapsed without mentioning that they turned into dust first isn't really a description of the events, and is very misleading.

These people didn't deliberately mislead us. They were witnessing advanced technology and did not have the words to properly describe it to us. Heck, I don't blame them. It's almost 9 years on, and I still struggle with the words to describe what happened. I just knew at the time it wasn't a plane that did it. I didn't know what did do it or even that the whole plane thing was a hoax.
Comment by Dean on April 23, 2010 at 2:27pm
Excellent out of the box thinking, everyone! One more thing to consider: the media stories that came first. Some sources reported the WTC buildings falling from what appeared to be controlled demolition. Others said there were no signs of a Boeing at the Pentagon. Are the original reports more reliable than the later ones (which contained what we now call the official story)?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 22, 2010 at 2:40pm
About the stand down....instead of thinking of it as "Why did the military fail to intercept the planes?" it should be "Why would I expect any military person to describe a non-event?" Nobody went up in response to a hijacking call. That could mean a complete breakdown of our system, but it could also mean there was no hijacking call.

In other ways, Sandy, I like your creativity, and even if we disagree, I hope you keep it up. You too, Dean. You both seem to be thinking about the real events of 9/11 (as opposed to the coverup conspiracy stories that include thermite and hijackers).
 

Members (6)

 
 
 

© 2024   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service