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 15, 2010 at 11:42am
i am a non expert, and i welcome everyone's opinions. yes,
the Web Fairy has been bashed to kingdom come, that makes
no never mind to me. of course there will be the bashers.
not sure what you mean by "cut out",.. i think, and i believe
Rosalee thinks, that the first hit shot was real, as in not fake.
i think i understand that she thinks that small uav's were
involved, while i'm sticking with my scrammy theory.................
i don't think that the second hit shots were real, but faked..
because even a non scientific guesser like me knows that that
is not what a plane crash looks like. (see web fairy second hit)
i appreciate everyone's guess, and only the actual perps
would know for sure, i say.....
for the record, i think that the job of the scramjet(s) was
to ignite already planted explosives, thank you marvin bush,
you pathetic piece of crud. (old marv had 'security' access
to the wtc before 9/11 allowing time for the planting of such.)
and i think the explosives were planted in such a way as to
look like plane shapes, for effect. but as some no planers
have pointed out, if a plane crashed into a building at high
speed, the wings would break off, not go thru the building
leaving nice pointy wing shapes.
i don't know about projecting images, projecting them
onto what? but as a non expert i think they just added fake
plane to scene and fooled many people with that. i do believe
that all of second 'hit' shots are fake, and that first 'hit' shot is
real tho blurred, and that the object was actually real, and was
an x43A scramjet or cousin. heck, i'm willing to admit it if i come out
wrong, we all have our own theories, and that is a good thing,
i am always open to hearing what others think.
Dean, i appreciate your interest, do you have any theories
of your own on the planes/not planes that you care to share?

oh, and about the so called witnesses, i've heard a bunch
of actual truthers diss the no planers because of 'all the
witnesses',. so far i haven't heard or seen any that i would
find that credible, but i'm willing to check into that.......but
of COURSE the swine who pulled 9/11 would have made
sure that they installed 'witnesses' to back up their plane
story.... like the lamo turds on the 9/11 doc by naudet bros,..
to me that proves absolutely nothing.....bullshit is also cheap.
although, if ya consider my theory about the scramjets,
they would have been launched by actual planes, that flew
over rather than hit, and that could explain the plane sightings
AND the peculiar pod under the plane that has been hashed before.

again , talk is good, and cheap, and i don't think we should
diss each other because we have different opinions...... it is
good, in my book, to hear what everyone thinks, no matter how
many scenarios we may come up with.
only the heartless bastards know for sure, i would say, and
there is no doubt in my mind that the yoo ess of aye was involved.
i find no scenario in which they would be innocent bystanders.





but by all means, all theories should be considered and
are of value.
Comment by Dean on April 14, 2010 at 5:05pm
OK. But in the absence of knowing how the image was projected, how safely can we assert your theory? Also, who coordinated the smash to be at the same time as the image?
To prove a theory, it may not be necessary to prove everything about it, but these seem like important details.
Anyone?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 14, 2010 at 3:42pm
The witnesses said they saw a plane because they thought they saw a plane. Simple.
Comment by Dean on April 14, 2010 at 3:12pm
Tracy,
Let me see if I have your theory straight - the TV cameras accurately recorded what happened at WTC while an image of a plane was shown. Something caused a smash and hours later the buildings fell.
There were spectators who said they saw a plane hit (especially the WTC2). Why do you think they said that?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 13, 2010 at 8:13pm
P.S. I'm already aware of thermite. And "nano" thermite.
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 13, 2010 at 8:12pm
I'm not sure if explosives were used. I know that no explosive that I'm aware of can create the sort of damage seen to the WTC site. I don't know how the image of the plane was projected. Take a look at my photos on this site. Sandy and I had a discussion about one of them.
Comment by Dean on April 13, 2010 at 7:59pm
Thanks, Tracy. If there were only images of a crash and no fakery, do you believe then that explosives of some sort were used to bring the buildings down?

Also, how was an image of a plane projected?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 13, 2010 at 6:50pm
I'm not working with a TV Video Fakery angle at all.

I presume that all the videos and images are real
and go from there.

I actually think that the videos (all of them) taken
at 9:03 AM on September 11, 2001, are genuine.
Not a frame of video fakery.

And I was stuck on TV Video Fakery for at least
two years, mind you. I listened and watched Simon
Shack etc. and everyone else talking about TV Video
Fakery.

I really don't think any of that happened. Yeah, the videos
do not depict a plane crash, but I don't think it's because
all those videos were doctored. What I think is that they
are (largely) genuine images of a fabricated event, that
of a plane "crash".

There was no video editing involved. It was a projected image
of a plane, and the people who did this forgot to slow this
image at impact and add debris to their simulations, so they
got caught. As long as you think the culprits were the individual
editors and videographers around the place, you're stuck in an
untenable theory and going for the wrong culprits.

Plus TV Video Fakery is a widespread conspiracy theory.
A couple of people operating computers that do the job is
less conspiracy-y and makes much more sense to me,
given that it would be hard to get all these different editors
to change their videos in precisely the same way.
Comment by Dean on April 13, 2010 at 6:06pm
Thanks, Sandy and Tracy!

Questions:
Sandy - the Web Fairy appears to be one of the leading sources of what I would call "TV Fakery" ideas. But the WF has encountered criticism for using original footage and simultaneously explaining where a missile or "whatzit" was cut out. http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/webfairy.html
How do you respond?

Tracy - fascinating idea. How does your theory work? If the conspirators were not government, how did they get access to the film footage to doctor it? Why didn't the government do a real investigation and find who took part in this event?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 13, 2010 at 3:48pm
 

Members (6)

 
 
 

© 2024   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service