9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Dead Men Talking


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


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

Comment by sandy rose on May 13, 2010 at 10:54am
Dean, you seem to be a fiesty guy who likes to get stuff done.
you know Scholars has a petition to release all footage. there
sure would be a heck of a lot to gain by that. what else can we
do to make that happen? i think that's about all we would need.

and what is their lame excuse for not disclosing all footage? GUILT.
the footage, if it even still exists, would answer all of our questions.
well, okay, at least a big chunk of em.
and it would absolutely show that offishal story was crock of bs.
should 9/11 truthers band together and take it to court? could we?
Comment by sandy rose on May 12, 2010 at 11:55am
agreed. where are any shots of real planes doing the hit?
whatever shots they dribbled out to us, they weren't of an
airliner. 's all we need to prove that one. all footage. done.
in fact it's really all we need to prove no planes anywhere. on
9/11. footage from all faked sites. done. where's the footage?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on May 8, 2010 at 9:29pm
The evidence that isn't there: a plane. They didn't rebuild the plane and show us how it happened. They expected us to believe that planes "vaporize" after crashing, which they don't. The dog that didn't bark. There was literally no plane found at the Pentagon, and reporters said so.
Comment by Dean on May 8, 2010 at 8:49pm
What is the best evidence that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on May 3, 2010 at 10:27pm
Agreed on both points.
Comment by Dean on May 3, 2010 at 9:38pm
How reliable is the forensic evidence?
The recorded cell conversations for example. There seems to be evidence the calls were faked. The technology is present. The planes were too high according to a leading report by a k dewdney.
Plane parts at the pentagon may not have been present at scene right away.
What do you think?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on May 3, 2010 at 6:38am
Much of the hearsay evidence contradicts the electrical weapon theory. There are news stories about hijackers and internet stories about LIHOP, MIHOP, pods and thermite. All of these stories contradict the electrical weapon theory.

Does any of the forensic evidence contradict the electrical weapon theory? I'd say the recorded cell phone conversations and the pictures of plane parts.
Comment by Dean on May 2, 2010 at 9:03pm
Is there any evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that electrical energy brought down the towers?
Comment by Dean on April 25, 2010 at 4:32pm
If no one objects, why not use this essay "To Understand 9/11..." as a hypothesis?

Starting point: h = the WTC came down by the use of electrical energy.

questions: is the essay's contention that the building turned into dust bits that fell to the ground correct?
is the essay's contention that explosives would have caused dust clouds that would have injured people correct?

My take:The first question appears to affirmative by observation. The second calls for a scientific opinion, which has been given in essay.

Relevance of questions: dust bits fits in with the hypothesis of electrical energy; an affirmative answer to second question would appear to rule out a competiting theory, that of the use of explosives.

What does everyone else think?
Comment by Whathappened Tothewtc on April 25, 2010 at 12:18pm

1. Introduction - Why we need to know some stuff first before we can understand 9/11.
2. Nature of matter - How the World Trade Center (WTC) was destroyed.
3. Physical movement - How we know that no hijackings occurred on 9/11.
4. Chemical reactions - How we know that thermite did not destroy the WTC.
5. Nikola Tesla - The person discovered the technology used to destroy the WTC.
6. Human psychology - Why it is so difficult to explain 9/11 to people.
7. Conclusion - Why this is the most important subject on the planet.

1. Introduction

9/11 was a complicated crime. Nothing is going to change that. Most of us saw some things on TV that day that we had never seen before, so we didn't know what to think about it. Those who lived in the area of Ground Zero then witnessed long weeks and months of the aftermath. 9/11 didn't end on September 11, 2001, because Ground Zero kept fuming heavily for many weeks and months.

As an experienced laboratory scientist, I recognized when I had seen something unusual. So unusual, in fact, that I didn't know what it was. No scientist knows everything, but every scientist knows how to go about finding out answers to scientific questions, and I couldn't figure out what it was. What kind of weapon, exactly, can turn a building into dust and then continue to fume for months?

Right away I knew some things. I knew I was in a particular position to investigate 9/11, because not only did I live in lower Manhattan, but because I'm that type of person. I already knew that FOX News lies. I already knew about the deep corruption in our Corporatocracy we have in the US. I was already outside the mainstream.

These three things situated me in a unique position to discover the weapon used to destroy the WTC. First, I am a trained scientist. Second, I am outside the mainstream. Third, I was living in the vicinity of Ground Zero during the aftermath and became an unwilling witness and ultimately a victim of the attacks. Part of the World Trade Center is in my body right now, because I breathed all those fumes. I deserve to know what caused them, and nobody can convince me that airplanes and jet fuel was what I was smelling.

9/11 wasn't about me. I was and am a relatively unknown person. In fact, I knew that in all likelihood I was not going to be the one who discovered the weapon. But here's the deal: I know what a correct answer looks like, and I knew I could recognize the correct answer if it were ever told to me. The correct answer would account for the damage seen on 9/11 and the near-constant fuming from Ground Zero for months after. I am proud to say that in 2005, I found the person who discovered the weapon. Her name is Judy Wood. You can go check out her website at http://drjudywood.com

2. The Nature of Matter

I'm going to keep this section simple. Matter is made up of molecules and molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of a very tiny nucleus (protons and neutrons) surrounded by an electron cloud. Molecules of a solid are very tightly packed in a relatively rigid formation. Molecules of a liquid are closely packed, but free to move around. Molecules of a gas are widely dispersed and bounce all around.

Explosives work in one way: a chemical reaction changes a solid into a gas, releasing energy in the form of heat and a physical blast wave that comes from the rapidly expanding gas. The hot gas continues to expand outwards in all directions until the pressure and temperature are in equilibrium with the environment.

The WTC was not brought down by explosives. We know this for two main reasons. First, the expanding dust cloud did not behave as if it were a gas. Instead, it behaved as if it were a colloidal suspension, and the dust bits fell to the ground. An explosive reaction (solid into gas) results in an approximately spherical-shaped expansion, which was not evident on 9/11. Instead, the dust poofed outwards and then fell to the ground like if you popped a balloon full of powder. POOF!

The second reason we know the WTC was not brought down by explosives is the fact that the dust cloud rolled over people and they survived. We know the temperature of the expanding dust cloud was not hot enough to kill or injure the folks on the street, therefore we know the dust cloud was not a result of an explosive.

Okay, so if not explosives, then what? Here's the answer: The molecules that made up the WTC were vibrated apart by electrical energy. That's it. Why did the buildings continue to fume for months after? Because the process is not self quenching. They had to remove the remains of the buildings before the fuming stopped at Ground Zero. The fuming that came from Ground Zero for months was the continuing molecular dissociation of the building materials. When they took away the last bits of the building, the fuming stopped, or almost stopped.

3. Physical movement

Part of the attacks of 9/11 was the cover story, so we need to understand a bit about the cover story. That whole thing about Osama bin Laden and the hijackers? Never happened. That whole thing about planes crashing into the World Trade Center? Never happened.

Momentum is conserved during every collision. That means that videos of a plane crashing into a building will show at least some pieces of the plane bouncing backwards in exactly the opposite direction. What we saw instead was the entire plane gliding smoothly into the building with no apparent damage, followed by explosions and stuff shooting out the other sides of the building. There wasn't any part of the plane that bounced off the south face of WTC 2, the supposed site of impact, which means there wasn't an impact.

For several years, people have claimed that all the videos were faked, that news editors and cameramen from all these different places altered their videos in exactly the same way. This is neither likely nor logical. What happened was that a 3-dimensional image of the plane was projected into the sky, and video cameras caught footage of this mysterious object passing into the WTC without damage. I'm not proving that no planes were hijacked on 9/11, I'm just telling you that none were. You can prove it to yourself by looking at the slow motion replay of the "plane crash". You won't find any bits of plane debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.

4. Chemical reactions

Getting quickly to the point, Steven Jones has been misleading us with his thermite theory. Thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive, which means it generates heat but not expansion of gas. People didn't die from the expanding dust cloud, therefore no type of incendiary could have been the cause of the destruction of the WTC. The only two people I'm willing to debate on this are Steven Jones himself or Niels Harrit, the primary author on that travesty of a paper, "Active Thermitic Material Found in World Trade Center Dust." Too many people have fallen in love with the thermite theory, despite its deep inadequacy as an explanation for 9/11.

5. Nikola Tesla

Nikola Tesla discovered a way to transmit electrical energy through the atmosphere, and even likely gave a demonstration of this technology, which resulted in the Tugunska disaster. Previously, he had caused a huge explosion with his experiments and had to relocate from Colorado to Long Island. He died penniless in Manhattan. There is so much about Tesla available for your own research, that I will say only one more thing. John Hutchison has been using electrical equipment to replicate Tesla's work since the late 1970's. You should check out his research, too.

6. Human psychology

Everyone remembers where they were on 9/11. We all have emotional "flash bulb memories" from that day, and the perpetrators of this crime took advantage of this by providing a cover story during that time. The hijacking story was the cover story, and this was cemented into our brains during a time of trauma.

Imagine if we had seen the buildings go POOF without the planes? We would have known right away that something very suspicious was afoot and start to search for enemies. The perpetrators provided us with the enemies almost immediately, so that instinct was squelched. We were bamboozled into thinking that a plane crash could take down a steel building, and we were bamboozled into believing that Osama bin Laden and 19 young Arabs committed the crime.

Secret technology was used. What were we supposed to "Never Forget"? Something almost none of us knew about at the time, and most of us still don't know about? Doesn't make sense to "Never Forget" something you never knew. And if you were like me, you didn't know what really happened on 9/11.

But that doesn't mean I'm wrong now. This isn't 2001. This is 2010. Almost nine long years have elapsed since the attacks of September 11, and we know more now than we did then.

7. Conclusion

Tesla was working on technology that could improve the lives of everyone on the planet. He knew that it could be used to destroy, and it was used to destroy the WTC. This was a terrible event, but we can turn it around. We can together continue to investigate this new technology, maybe even find out who used it against us and bring them to justice, but even more. We can use this energy to make our lives better, as Tesla originally intended. We can use a little bit of electrical energy to generate a large amount of physical energy, and we can transmit this energy to any location on the Earth. Pretty powerful and exciting, isn't it?

Members (6)


© 2022   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service