Messages

[strong]

I was going to post another long-winded 7/7 post, but I'll hold fire for now...

Just in response to the 9/11 stuff, I stand by what I said earlier - Judy Wood's material has not been debunked. When talking about evidence, there is strong evidence and weak evidence. ‘Debunkers' tend to attack the weak evidence and ignore the strong evidence. The ambulance that survived at ground zero is strong evidence that chunks of a building did not fall on it and crush it, but rather turned to powder before hitting the ground. Just watch any video of the so-called ‘collapse' and you can see the chunks of building disintegrating into fine dust as they fall! You can't get stronger evidence than that â€" it's a direct observation.



My analysis of the ambulance from last year. It was never really addressed properly - sort of just swept under the rug.

Here's a simple question:
What do you think happened to those buildings? Describe what happened, in scientific terms. What was the destructive mechanism?

We debunked [Judy Wood's] pictures and some other stuff...

Judy Wood's material has not been debunked - not by anyone here, or in the wider world. A poor understanding and misrepresentation of the evidence leads to apparent debunking. Deliberate misrepresentation of evidence and subsequent “debunking” is something that professional “debunkers” or spin-doctors do (many involved in the so-called “truth movement” it seems). What happened on 9/11 is beyond most people's comprehension. It's a bit “sci-fi” for lack of a better description, but this is better than believing in cartoon physics. The NIST report did not actually address how those towers came down because they can't explain it in terms of classical or conventional physics. Please read my last post on the topic for clarification, here.

---

I cannot resist making an observation that this thread is becoming monkey424's newsthread, rather than discussion, since apparently he avoids discussing anything himself .

Yes, I'm avoiding discussion somewhat. But I've noticed that the discussions usually avoid the specifics of what I post about and end up going off on a tangent. No one has yet addressed the anomalies I raised in my last 7/7 post.

I've read through the discussions but I don't think I have anything particular to add to the broad range of global issues that people are discussing. I prefer to stay focused on one topic at a time. The topic at the moment is false flag terrorism. I'm not interested in people's beliefs about this, that, or whatever. I intend for this thread to be more scientific. I'm interested in the things that don't add up - which evidently always seem to apply to the “official” version of recent terror events.




Link back to initial 7/7 posting

We've looked at some anomalies regarding train times and CCTV timestamps. Let's now look at some other problems with the official story. Much of the following content is related to the 7/7 Inquest held in 2011 over several months. It should be noted that the Inquest was not held to question the official narrative, however the Inquest did bring greater clarity to the facts of the event as well as new information. The Inquest transcripts are available here.


The four alleged bombers




Evidence of suicide bombers

The evidence of suicide bombers is sketchy. Initial death counts excluded the ‘bombers', with the police adding one to each of the tallies later that day so that the accused would be included in the count. It appears the ‘bombers' were blown to smithereens and body parts were hard to come by. ‘Evidence' turned up a day or two later, including Khan's torso (how did they miss that initially?) and Tanweer's backbone.

It seems the scarcity of body parts was made up for by an abundance of ID discovered at each site. Sometimes, the ID of an individual was found at more than one site - for example, Khan's ID was apparently found at all four sites! ID typically included passports, driver's licence, mobile phones, and even mobile phone insurance. Some bottles of hydrogen peroxide were also ‘found' on the Piccadilly Line (which is of course the calling-card of your modern terrorist).

There was also a substantial lack of credible witnesses to the accused being present at the explosion sites.


Lack of CCTV

This CCTV image below appears to be the last of the four together at King's Cross station. We do not see any CCTV of Khan, Tanweer or Lindsay after this; most importantly, we do not see them on or around the trains that blew up. And apart from some CCTV of Hussain lingering around King's Cross, we do not see CCTV of him on or around the bus that blew up. An article on this here.




DNA testing

The official report states that “DNA has identified the four at the four separate bombsites”. Someone's DNA being found at a scene does not prove they were there at the specific time doing the specific thing you accuse them of doing (it would be nice to corroborate with say CCTV and witnesses). That argument aside, however, I want to focus on a particular case â€" that of DNA identification for Khan. In the Inquest, forensic scientist Timothy Clayton said he received copies of DNA from a muscle sample (allegedly from Khan) as well as Khan's parents, Tika Khan and Mamida Begum. An individual's DNA can be matched to that of their biological parents. The test results indicated a positive match, however, as Clayton was just given ‘copies' of the DNA profiles, there was no independent method to confirm their origin. Such confirmation would be handy since it turns out that Mamida Begum was probably not Khan's biological mother, but rather his step-mother who happened to have the same name (Khan's real mother had died a few years earlier). An article on this here.


Type of explosives

We know that three trains and one bus blew up, however, the explosive material responsible remains unclear and was subject to a forever changing story. Initial forensic experts reported traces of a military grade explosive known as C4 found at the crime scenes along with evidence of timed detonators. This would negate the idea of suicide bombers, as this type of explosive is too advanced. The alleged explosive material quickly morphed into TATP, a highly volatile and unstable compound. The TATP story persisted for a couple of years and was then replaced in 2007 by the even more outrageous one involving some vague mixture of hydrogen peroxide and black pepper. Forensic experts at the Inquest were apparently baffled by this mysterious hitherto unheard-of mix, described as “unique” by Clifford Todd and “a novel, improvised material previously unseen by this laboratory” by Kim Simpson. It appears the peroxide + pepper mix was not exactly endorsed by the experts, and no forensic chemist to date has been able to identify the primary explosive mix.

A good read on the subject by Dr Nick Kollerstrom is here.


Reconstructing the scene

Initial reports indicating that military grade explosives were involved are more consistent with the evidence. The Tube explosions were powerful enough to rip large holes through the respective carriages, with witness testimony suggesting that the explosions came from beneath the floor. This idea is supported by the fact that many casualties lost legs and feet in the explosions.

Schematic diagrams provided by the Metropolitan Police were shown at the Inquest illustrating the position of passengers and alleged bombers at each site based on witness testimony. Consider one such diagram for Edgware Road, shown below.



Khan, the alleged suicide bomber for this site, is absent from any CCTV images or witness statements, with the exception of Daniel Biddle whose testimony places Khan in the row of seats as shown. We can only guess why no photographic evidence of the train wreckage is available. Nevertheless, the hole locations (yes, more than one hole) can be ascertained from witness statements (see annotations in the diagram). We have a rather strange scene. It seems there were probably three separate holes in the carriage (with a person falling into each one) and none of them compatible with the alleged position of Khan.

This and more detail in regards to the Edgware Road site, compiled by Dr Nick Kollerstrom, is contained in articles here, and here.

Similar detail for the others site is below:

• Aldgate
• Piccadilly Line
• Tavistock Square

Electrical experiences

A considerable number of witnesses, many from inside the carriages where bombs were meant to have gone off, reported feelings of electrocution and other phenomena suggestive of electrical activity. Statements from witnesses best describe the scene. Selected statements are below:




No post-mortems

No post-mortems were performed on the dead. Why? Isn't it customary or obligatory to perform post-mortems? Or would the examinations have revealed something that contradicts the official narrative?

Furthermore, it seems that a special room had been set up to receive the dead of the 7/7 bombings in a temporary morgue built on army land, the contract for which arrived on the contractor's desk on 6/7/2005, the day before the massacres.

[Alternative Knowledge Topic #7False Flag Terrorism]

In Portugal, to reach puberty in a faster way, men rub their testicles with some onion and olive oil sauce. They then sit in the grass next to farm animals.

Thank-you for the testicular commentary, Miguel. Sharp and informative as always.

---

Alternative Knowledge Topic #7
False Flag Terrorism

You can Google “false flag” for its definition and historical context. In short, the term describes a covert operation planned and executed by Group A and made to look like Group B did it. Muslim extremists typically feature in the role of Group B.

---

Let's return briefly to 9/11. Osama Bin Laden was identified as the mastermind behind the event - literally less than a minute after the second plane impact. Seriously? Since when are crimes solved like this? Bin Laden's name was then repeated over and over on our television sets, firmly establishing him as the villain. What a load of frog shit!

As you probably know, I've written extensively about 9/11 on these forums and WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. A summary of this is available here. Please read.



One of the problems with 9/11 is that it involved highly advanced secret technology, and this "sci-fi" element makes the reality of 9/11 very hard to swallow. In comparison, the 2005 London bombings (otherwise known as 7/7) is more "down to Earth". It is nowhere near as complex and mind-boggling as 9/11 in terms of the technology involved, and I would suggest this makes it easier to comprehend as a false flag event.

The 2005 London Bombings Official Report is available here. The reported timeline of events is illustrated as follows.



Issue #1

The official report says the lads entered Luton station at 7:15 and go through the ticket barriers together.

However...

The timestamp on this CCTV footage shows them entering Luton station at 7:21.



Curiously, the official report does show this image with the caption "CCTV of the 4 entering Luton station", but the timestamp is cropped.

Another CCTV image shows the lads were still in the car park at 7:19, verifying they didn't enter the station at 7:15.




Issue #2

The report says the lads caught the 7:40 train. However, they couldn't have possibly caught this train...

It was cancelled!!



According to the above timetable, other trains were severely delayed that day too. The Home Office eventually revised their story, a year later, with the latest narrative now stating the lads caught the 7:24 train. Curiously, a sequence of CCTV images was subsequently released showing the lads entering Luton station at 7:21, casually making their way to the platform and catching the 7:24 train.



Surely this CCTV footage was available to the Home Office when they first drafted their report, so how could they possibly get the train time wrong?

[Alternative Knowledge Topic #6Money Part 2 - Who Funded Hitler?]

Come on guys!
When I come to this thread I come with a jumbo tub of popcorn prepared, and expect at least 3-4 rambling novella-length posts to savor...
Where's the meat?!

You crack me up, little buddy!

Grab your popcorn folks! Let's kick this shit up a notch!


Alternative Knowledge Topic #6
Money Part 2 - Who Funded Hitler?

Seventy years ago the greatest massacre in history began - with financing from the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System of the United States.



I liked this opening statement so much that I decided to steal it. It's from an article by Nikolai Starikov, a Russian writer and economics expert, and is complementary to my previous posting where I talked a bit about the central banking system. This posting is primarily a summary of Starikov's article, which is available to read here. Other sources of information are referenced at the end.


Overview

According to Starikov, the United States and Great Britain (more specifically, the financial and industrial elite of those nations) set out to establish absolute control over Germany's financial system after WW1. This was part of a post-war strategy to control the politics of Central Europe and ultimately see the rise of Nazism. The central banks were instrumental in achieving this goal. According to Starikov, the implementation of this strategy included the following steps:

• 1st: 1919-1924 - Preparing the grounds for massive American financial investments in the German economy
• 2nd: 1924-1929 - Establishing control over the financial system and funding the National-Socialist movement
• 3rd: 1929-1933 - Inciting and unleashing a deep economic crisis ensuring the Nazis would rise to power
• 4th: 1933-1939 - Financial cooperation with the Nazi government and support for its expansionist foreign policy, aimed at preparing and unleashing WW2

I have highlighted in red extreme or conspiratorial views that are expressed by Starikov in this posting to help distinguish these statements from the more factual information.


Step 1:
1919-1924

In January 1919, the Paris Peace Conference was held in Versailles to establish the terms of peace following WW1. International bankers were on the scene (or working behind the scenes) and played a dominant role in the creation of the Treaty of Versailles. The infamous treaty put all war guilt on Germany, crippling the nation with enormous war reparations, and ultimately paved the way for another world war! Some key individuals present at the Peace Conference (mostly associated with the Rothschild family) were:

• Paul Warburg - American banker, architect of the US Federal Reserve System
• Edward M. House - Rothschild agent
• Bernard Baruch - Rothschild agent
• Alfred Milner - Rothschild agent
• Philip Sassoon - direct descendant of Amschel Rothschild
• George Mandel - born Jerobeam Rothschild

European countries (primarily the UK and France) owed the US a total of $11 billion in war debts following WW1. The debtor countries, in turn, serviced their war debt using their reparation payments from Germany. The German currency subsequently collapsed.




Step 2:
1924-1929

In 1924, a new project known as the "Dawes Plan" was launched by US banking giant J.P. Morgan and Co. to solve Germany's financial woes. The project was commissioned by Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England. Another mind behind the project was Reichbank director Hjalmar Schacht, who played an instrumental role in bringing together the Anglo-American and German financial circles. Schacht later served in Hitler's government as Reichbank president.

      

As a result of the Dawes Plan, Germany was granted $200 million in loans, half of which were provided by Morgan's banks. Although the loans were officially given to Germany to ensure the payment of reparations, in reality, they were designed to restore the country's military-industrial potential. The loans were paid off with shares of German companies, allowing US capital to actively integrate itself into the German economy. As a result, as early as 1929, Germany's industry was second in the world, but to a large extent it was in the hands of America's leading financial-industrial groups. Chemical manufacturer IG Farben, for example, a key component of the German war machine, was under the control of Rockefeller's Standard Oil.

   


Step 3
1929-1933

The Wall Street stock market crash occurred in October 1929. Economists have varying opinions about the cause of the crash, with the US Federal Reserve featuring in some theories, however Starikov does not fence-sit on this point. According to Starikov, the US Federal Reserve deliberately engineered this collapse, which was followed by the third phase of the Anglo-American plans. This is obviously not considered a mainstream view (see Wikipedia's entry on the Great Depression for mainstream views) but it is consistent within the context of Starikov's article. I found a couple of postings on some economics forums that seem to support this view:

Spoiler

What Caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929?

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/76/economics/wall-street-crash-1929/

Peter says:

The instigator of the Wallstreet crash of 1929 was the FED. It was a planned crash. By allowing the people to borrow money to buy stocks and bonds. They even made a new regulation that allowed ordinary people to buy stocks with 90% of the money borrowed. Stock prices already were going up due to the FED money policy that had created a big boom (The roaring 20's) and everybody wanted to benefit from this so it was no more than natural that ordinary people wanted to get their share of the profit.
In 1929 the FED announced that the money supply should be contracted because of worries for inflation, and as a consequence the banks from which people had borrowed money for stocks requested the money to be paid back.
This is of course not the only reason for the crash, the whole economy of the USA was in a boom because of too much money creation (intentionally)
the 29 crash and ensuing depression has many similarities to the current depression. It is also orcestrated by the central banks, but this is not a surprise because all the minor and mayor crashes after '29 have been caused by Central Banking overprinting of fiat money. This always creates first booms and then busts.
Nowadays the situation is much more grave then ever because the Western world and most of the rest of the world also for that matter are more or less drowning in borrowed money, too much to pay back. The EU is on the brink of disaster, so is the USA and so are many of the Bric nations

--------------------------------

What caused the 1929 stock market crash?

https://www.khanacademy.org/questions/what-caused-the-1929-stock/kafb_7590643

Tommy Etheredge:

I would say the cause was the Federal Reserve artificially lowering interest rates creating a 'boom' due to everybody borrowing. People borrowed money to invest in commodities, then when the fed raised interest rates it caused severe deflation with a sharp drop in the price of commodities and the stock market. Everybody sold off everything as the dollar grew stronger but there was a big decrease in the money supply so it became hard to expand the economy. That's how I understood the root causes of the great depression

We could have recovered from it much sooner if the government had backed off on spending, FDR's administration did not know proper economics. In 1920 there was a 'great depression' too but no one has ever heard of it. It was caused by the inflation of the money supply due to WW1 if I remember right. It was actually worse than the first year of the real Great Depression in 1929 in terms of unemployment. The government halved spending in 1920, cut taxes, and the Federal reserve stayed out of it and we recovered big time by the next summer. This is what I understand from what I've been learning about economics but you may want to fact check all of this but it gets you started

[close]

The Federal Reserve and J.P. Morgan decided to cease lending to Germany, spurring a banking crisis and economic depression in Central Europe. But, in the thick of financial crisis, the Nazi Party was kept afloat thanks to large donations from IG Farben (c/o Rockefeller's Standard Oil) and industrialists like Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was a German steel and coal baron with business and financial ties to Prescott Bush, President George W. Bush's grandfather. Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen. He was director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC), which was a holding company for the Nazis and represented Thyssen's US interests. Bush also worked for Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), a firm that acted as a US base for Thyssen.

   

Note that Bank of England Director Montagu Norman was a former BBH partner, and his intimacy with this firm was essential to his management of the ‘Hitler project' (Tarpley & Chaitkin, 2004). On 4 January 1932, Montagu Norman met with Hitler and German Chancellor Franz von Papen to reach a secret agreement to secure funding for the Nazi Party.

   


Step 4
1933-1939

• Hitler refused to continue payment of reparations; neither Britain nor France forced him to pay up.
• Germany acquired loans from the US and UK totalling $3 billion.
• August 1934, Rockefeller's Standard Oil purchased 730,000 acres of land in Germany and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil.
• At the same time, the United States secretly provided Germany with the most modern equipment for airplane factories, which would soon produce German aircraft.
• By 1941, when WW2 was in full-swing, US investment in the German economy totalled $475 million; Standard Oil invested $120 million alone; General Motors â€" $35 million; ITT â€" $30 million; and Ford â€" $17.5 million.

Some references:

Nikolai Starikov, (2010), "The Americans who funded Hitler, Nazis, German economic miracle, and World War II", Oriental Review.
https://www.sott.net/article/298259-The-Americans-who-funded-Hitler-Nazis-German-economic-miracle-and-World-War-II

William Guy Carr, (1958), Chapter 10: "The Treaty of Versailles", in Pawns In The Game.
http://www.lovethetruth.com/books/pawns/10.htm

Kapil De, (2013), "War-Treaty of Versailles 1919", Lies Your Teacher Taught You (blog).
http://lovkap.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/war-treaty-of-versailles-1919.html

Ben Aris & Duncan Campbell, (2004), "How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power", The Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, (2004), Chapter 2: "The Hitler Project", in George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-2-the-hitler-project/

Author A. Samsonov, (2013), "Who brought Hitler to power", My Future America.
http://myfutureamerica.org/?p=2966

[Alternative Knowledge Topic #5:]

As much as I'd love to chat about 9/11 (or even Madeline McCann - remember her?) I'm going to push on with the next topic.

This one will BLOW YOUR MIND! Or put you to sleep...

Alternative Knowledge Topic #5:
Money

I'm not an economist or anything like that so I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject of money. However, everyone knows that money is the root of all evil, so in the interest of my conspiracy ramblings / vigilante-like thread, I think it's a topic worth exploring. Again, this might be an obvious or well-known subject to some, but I'm writing about this here mainly for my benefit - just to get my head round it all. Hopefully a few will be enlightened too. As it is also quite a dry subject, it may be good reading material before bed.

Brief History of Money

• At some point in time there became a need to replace bartering with a monetary system, and new laws facilitated this transition.
• Raw materials were processed into some form of currency, e.g. precious metals were forged into coins by goldsmiths.
• Currency began to circulate through the economy through trade and taxes.
• Trade was also sometimes facilitated by promissory notes.
• In this system, it is the goods and services that have value.
• Promissory notes are only as valuable as the good or service it represents (this is where the phrase "as good as gold" comes from).

      


The Goldsmiths

• Because 17th century goldsmiths worked with precious metals, they had the most secure safes in all the land. Consequently, there was a public demand for storing money in these safes.
• The goldsmiths were essentially like a bank for depositing money.
• At some point, the goldsmiths cottoned onto this idea of lending money out once they'd accumulated sufficient cash in their inventory.
• The goldsmiths started lending out a portion of the money and collecting interest, just like the banks of today.

   


Modern-Day Money

• Modern-day money is called fiat currency - money that the government has declared to be legal tender, but is not backed by a physical commodity.
• Because modern-day money has no intrinsic value (goods and services do), introducing more money into an economy will cause inflation (if disproportionate to the goods and services in that economy).
• Nowadays, nearly all money across the world is digital (about 95%) which is created as simply as pressing a key on a computer.

Fractional-Reserve Banking

• The fractional-reserve banking system is illustrated in this diagram below, sourced from the internet (with some improvised graphics).
• The bank typically reserves 10% of a deposit and loans out the remaining 90%.
• The result (according to the diagram) appears to be additional money in the economy, however I would suggest this is offset by the borrower's ability to pay back the principle. In other words, the goods and services make up the total value in the system, not the money in circulation.
• The problem with this system is when a borrower defaults on a loan.
• Another problem is when everyone wants to withdraw at the same time!
• Note - an alternative to this system is full-reserve banking, or some sort of hybrid system.

Interest

• Note - the concept of interest is not shown in the above diagram.
• Paying interest on loans is called usury, and it is prohibited in Islamic banking systems. I believe Islamic banks earn profit by other means (e.g. higher admin fees).
• The biggest problem with our Western banks is the interest they charge on loans, as the profit made by interest is disproportionate to the value the banks add to society.
• If a commercial bank had (say) $10 million in loan requests on any given day, it would simply request that money from the central bank, who would type a few keys to create the money from nowhere and send it to the commercial bank that night. They would then distribute it as loans to its customers. They earn interest from the customer and, of course, pay interest to the central bank for the loan of the capital. Money and profit from nowhere.

The Central Bank

• According to this article on the US banking system, the central bank is owned by private commercial banks, like shareholders of any private industry, however monetary policy is dictated by 12 District Banks and the Board of Governors appointed by the government. The central bank, called the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) in the US, primarily deals with the buying and selling of government bonds (open market operations). A bond is really not much more than an IOU with a serial number. The FRB buys a large chunk of these, which the government then pays back over time, plus interest.
• According to this financial statement from the Board of Governors 1999 Annual Report, the FRB also contributes a generous annual rebate to the government. However, this does not compensate for the interest owed by the government, so the government operates on a loss. This is typical of most years, as illustrated in the chart below.
• Furthermore, the FRB also collects surplus (every year it seems), also illustrated in the chart below. Since 1998 the surplus has accumulated by nearly $30 billion $US.

   


FAQ's

• If the US central bank is controlled by the government, then why isn't the money held in surplus used immediately to service the government debt?
• More pertinently, why is the debt there in the first place? Again, if the central bank is controlled by the government, why does the government effectively pay interest to itself and perpetuate the debt? Who's running the show?
• If most of the money across the world is digital (and costs next to nothing to create) then why is there this disproportionate debt attached to the money in its creation?

Mainstream Media

Repeating what I said earlier – I'm not an expert on this topic, but am interested in learning more about it and encourage discussion. Unfortunately, the mainstream media (as we've seen) is not a reliable source of information because they won't focus on the real issue with our monetary system – they won't question the idiocy of the system itself.

If you have some time, please watch this presentation by Richard D Hall on the very topic I've been discussing, with more detail about the apparent role of mainstream media to keep us uninformed.

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BilSlHFzr88&t=28s[/embed]

[Madeleine McCann]

Danvzare

"So what's this truth about 9/11 then?"

In summary: the towers didn't burn up, nor did they slam to the ground; they turned into dust in mid-air. Episode 3 of Adam Dywer's "Irrefutable" series illustrates this pretty well, here.

Also, see my final post on the matter, here.

---

Mandle

"The media often spins the news according to its own or the government's agenda... DUUUUUH!!!"

So you know this - fine.

"Still doesn't mean there is some master plan behind the whole deal".

Perhaps.

---

Khris

You're getting your information from RationalWiki? God help you! I've already pointed out that the phrase "conspiracy theory" was popularised / weaponised by the CIA, and Wikipedia is controlled / biased. RationalWiki is fucking a joke! Its content is actually quite infantile.

---

Jack & Miguel

Thanks for your contribution.

---

Madeleine McCann

As Miguel pointed out, detective Gonçalo Amaral has just recently won an appeal against the McCanns' libel claims.

If you have not viewed any of the documentaries I have posted yet (link back to page here) then at least remember who this guy is:



Clarence Mitchell, the media spokesperson for the McCanns, gave this talk recently in Australia. See how many times he lies!

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzikQRswVpw&feature=em-subs_digest[/embed]

[have]

Did anyone watch any of the Madeleine McCann documentaries? The point of the documentaries is not so much to know what happened to Madeleine, but to expose the mainstream media for what they really are - nothing more than propagandists, feeding lies and disinformation to the public and ultimately confusing the whole issue so no one knows what to believe! The documentaries look at the facts and evidence of the case, basically nothing you would have heard about in mainstream news (unless you live in Portugal perhaps).

   

The very basics of conspirational thought is to pay attention to insignificant details while ignoring the big picture.

First of all, there's nothing wrong with "conspirational thought". Conspiracies (as in the false-flag / naughty-government type) have happened in the past, which allows us to project that they can happen in the future. That's right - you are allowed to think like this. But be wary – as I've highlighted previously, there is an active effort by the powers that be (let's call them the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex) to not only ridicule conspiracy theories but to create them in the first place! It's a type of subversion.

Take 9/11 for example. There is a truth to 9/11, and it's certainly not what we have been told by the lying mainstream media or so-called experts. The official mainstream story falls apart so easily – one most glaringly obvious thing is the lack of a conventional explanation (with classical physics) by any academic, professional or government representative for how the twin towers disintegrated in about 10 seconds on 9/11. The NIST report does not address this, nor any other official U.S. government report. In addition to this, we have controlled opposition. This is an active effort by certain individuals whose agenda to supress and distort 9/11 truth by diverting our attention away from evidence and instead focusing on insignificant details and ridiculous theories that are easily dismissed or disproved (individuals such as Richard Gage, Steven E Jones, Niels Harrit, Jim Fetzer, Dimitri Khalezov, etc). See my previous posting here.

So what is the truth? Fortunately, for 9/11, it is KNOWN – and is available for those who want to know it. It's an unpopular and ugly truth, but truth none the less, and supported by a shitload of evidence!

This thread is about knowledge. Not speculation, emotional reasoning or theories. Just facts and evidence.

Evidence = truth = knowledge



---

Madeline McCann

I was hoping Miguel would join the discussion.

The man in charge of the case was put away as soon as British detectives came into play.

That man was Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral, who wrote a book about the incident. I believe the book has been translated into several other languages – except English. Here's a website on Amaral:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id241.html

---



When Madeline Died

(New documentary here).

This is the sixth doco in the series, just recently uploaded to YouTube.

The past presence of a human corpse was detected in the McCanns' apartment and in many other places associated with the McCanns by highly trained police sniffer dogs. This clue suggests that Madeleine may have died and her body lain in the apartment for a period of time. Assuming this is correct, what date and time did Madeleine die? The most logical way to address this question is to go back in time to determine the last piece of credible evidence which proves Madeleine was alive. This film attempts to do this by forensically examining witness statements, photographs, physical evidence, police reports and media reports. In doing so the film exposes the agenda of the mainstream media which has, on the whole, helped to cover up the truth about the Madeleine McCann case.

[Alternative Knowledge Topic #4]

Thanks Jack Lucy and SilverSpook for contributing.

Just a quick note on Alex Jones. I did mention him in an earlier post. Snippet here:

Spoiler

People may be familiar with alternative media personality Alex Jones. He is well known for sensationalising conspiracy theories with his special blend of hysteria and salesman like rapid-fire speech. He will cover most conspiracy stuff, but will avoid Dr Wood's work like the plague! He won't acknowledge her work and becomes irritated when anyone tries to bring it up on his radio show. This audio clip is most revealing (here). And this one (here).

[close]

Also, the topic Jack raised concerning central banks and perpetual debt is of particularly importance and interest (no pun intended) and I was actually planning it for a future post.

But for now, the next topic I want to cover relates to the last one on subversion; specifically media subversion. Media of course now comes in a variety of forms and flavours, but the mainstream media will always attract the largest audience. It should come as no surprise that mainstream media, and even alternative media to some extent, is a monopolised and controlled entity.

I know from personal experience in China that mainstream media is controlled and conditioned for a mainstream audience. Alternative news is virtually inaccessible (for both natives and foreigners). YouTube, Wikipedia and Facebook are all blocked. One thing that my Chinese father-in-law tends to do when visiting Australia is to access online information that he can't in China. In regards to information access, the West in comparison appears to be the opposite; we have a dizzying abundance of information rather that a lack thereof. The mainstream is still controlled (perhaps more subtlety) but alternative news is equally compromised, existing as a minefield of information that only a few will attempt to navigate to sort the good info from the bad (the latter comprising disinformation and propaganda, deliberate or otherwise).

Alternative Knowledge Topic #4
Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of Madeleine McCann

A series of documentaries made by independent researcher Richard D Hall examines the facts and evidence surrounding the tragic story of Madeline McCann, the child allegedly kidnapped in Praia da Luz, Portugal. Those in Portugal may be more aware of the alternative narrative of the Madeleine McCann case, which is certainly not what UK (Western) mainstream media has told us. Not only does Richard D Hall expose mainstream media for what they really are - propagandists - but he also reveals who is controlling mainstream media and their connection to an overarching hierarchy involving the UK government and intelligence agencies.



The initial documentary consist of four films:

(View full documentary here).

1. The Initial Storm

The first film revisits the scene of the crime, the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, where Madeline was allegedly kidnaped. Many anomalies of the case are highlighted, including a highly suspicious crime scene, improbable and contradictory statements from the MaCann's and their friends, as well as changing stories relating to their account of events. This led the local Portuguese police to initially conclude that the whole event was fabricated. The film focuses on the swift reaction of UK mainstream media and identifies a central figure, Clarence Mitchell, as being instrumental in media manipulation and control over the issue.

2. Dogs Don't Lie

The second film covers some of the most compelling evidence of the case. The Portuguese authorities engaged expert sniffer dog handler, Martin Grime, to deploy two sniffer dogs in the Praia da Luz holiday apartment. One dog was trained to detect the former presence of a corpse; the other the presence of blood. The dogs respectively detected the smell of a corpse and blood in several locations in the apartment, as well as on clothing and belongings, and even in the boot of the MaCann's hired car.

3. Private Investigations

The third film delves deeper into the organised cover-up of the incident, of which Clarence Mitchell was instrumental as mentioned earlier. We are also introduced to other key individuals and their role in facilitating the cover-up, partly through the use of dodgy private investigation agencies. A tangled web of diversion and lies is unravelled, one bogus story after another.

4. Government Agents

The forth film continues exposing the increasingly bizarre cover-up which, as inexplicable as it may sound, ultimately ties to UK government and intelligence involvement. One may roll their eyes and wonder why on Earth government agencies would be involved with what should have essentially been a foreign affair, like many similar incidents no doubt are and remain so. The reason for the high level cover-up is not clear, and the film does not attempt to provide a definitive reason beyond stating that one must exist. However, the film does allude to a possible link to paedophilia, something evidence points to intelligence agencies being involved with as a tool of manipulation.



The Phantoms

(Documentary here).

This supplementary documentary made by Hall addresses the alleged kidnapping scenario. Numerous sightings of a man were reported to the police on different dates following Madeline MaCann's disappearance. This film examines the credibility of these sightings by looking at police witness statements, media reports and other evidence. After a thorough and extensive examination of all this evidence, the most likely conclusion is laid bare for all to see.

[Previous posts:]

Previous posts:

9/11 - Summary of What Happened and How it has Been Covered Up	Link here
Alternative Knowledge Topic #1: Origin of "Conspiracy Theory"	Link here
Alternative Knowledge Topic #2: Wikipedia	Link here

I don't know why our great and powerful moderator keeps locking these threads.

One conspiracy thread at a time is enough. If you want to offer these points as arguments, you can do so in the other thread.

That "other thread" is a cesspool of muddled-up information, which is why I wanted to start fresh.

And let's not forget the word "conspiracy" is CIA propaganda. Or did you miss that point completely, Snarky?

This thread is about knowledge. Pretty simple.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A study of history shows that civilizations that abandon the quest for knowledge are doomed to disintegration."
- Bernard Lovell, British astronomer and writer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me preface this by humbly saying that I am by no means an expert on the controversial subjects that I'm attempting to bring to light. Conversely, I think it's safe to say that those participating in the discussion (if given a chance to do so) are no more an expert than I. I'll freely admit that I can be naive about some things and I don't know everything. However, we all have blind spots – everyone – and anyone claiming to "know better" is fooling themselves. The only way you can know ANYTHING and to have a constructive discussion is to talk about facts and evidence, with lesser emphasis on views, opinions, theories, and so forth. Talking about history is good but be wary that history is written by the winners and truths tend to get buried. Arnold Rimmer from Red Dwarf alludes to this point here.

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGISD6UmXxo[/embed]

I am in the process of learning (or re-learning as the case may be) and posing here not just to share information but also to consolidate my own understanding of ideas and issues. I'm not trying to be a guru or anything like that, and I hate being in the spotlight, but I guess I've taken on this role because I feel it's important. The world as I see it now is one of complexity and deception on a scale like we've never seen before. I was born in the early 80s and therefore did not really experience the end of the Cold War (I was only 6 years old when the Berlin Wall fell). Growing up in the 90s, the concept of war seemed like distant history - a thing of the past, not the present. To be fair, I was aware of war on some level as one my earliest friends was from Lebanon and had experienced war as a child before his family relocated to Australia. But other than stories from abroad, life in Australia was pretty sheltered. I'm telling you this to give you an idea of my background and level of experience and knowledge. Those who live abroad (particularly those in non-Western countries) may have a better idea or at least a different perspective on some of these issues.


Alternative Knowledge Topic #3
Ideological Subversion

"Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
- Winston Churchill

Continuing with the theme of intellectual terrorism, the role of intelligence agencies comes into question. How much do you know about them? Bear in mind it might be a skewed perception of what they actually do. It gets even more complicated when you consider that individuals within the intelligence agencies themselves might not even be aware of the full picture. The idea of disinformation and double-agents adds yet another dimension to the tangled web of intelligence. But before we get too excited and start thinking about potential adventure game plots, let's attempt to separate fact from fiction.



One thing that you may not know about the KGB was its role and primary function relating to psychological warfare during the Cold War. According to former Soviet agent Yuri Bezmenov, only 15% of the KGB's time, money and manpower was devoted to espionage and covert activity, the type typically glorified by Hollywood in the form of James Bond-style flicks. In actuality most of the KGB's resources (the remaining 85%) was spent on a four-step process called "Ideological Subversion".

According to Bezmenov, the aim of Ideological Subversion was to change the perception of reality to such an extent that, despite an abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their family, their community and their country. The goal was to weaken a country, strip its culture and corrupt their values to a point of complete vulnerability. It's a great brainwashing process that goes very slow.

The four steps in the process are:

1. Demoralization.
2. Destabilization.
3. Crisis.
4. Normalization.

Here is a short snippet from an interview with Bezmenov from the 80s.

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA[/embed]

Here are some longer videos, specifically:

1. The longer version of the interview in which Bezmenov talks about his life working for the KGB in India and how he escaped / defected to Canada (here).
2. A 1983 lecture on subversion to an American audience (here).

Whether you accept this guy as legitimate / relevant or not, he does present some compelling ideas and should make you wonder if subversion currently infiltrates Western society. I would argue that it is does, quite blatantly, and it is not necessarily the Soviets or any one group pulling the strings.

[Alternative Knowledge Topic #1:]

Well, we're off to a good start...

My initial 9/11 post was moved around and buried here: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.260

(Deep breath)

I started this thread by revisiting the 9/11 issue but do not intend to restrict discussions to this topic. Rather, this thread is intended to be about "alternative knowledge". I've intentionally used this phrase rather than "conspiracy theory" in consideration of the following:

a) Not everything is a theory, even if it is perceived so.
b) "Conspiracy theory" is a manipulative term as outlined below.

In other words, this thread is intended to be about things we can know, based on evidence, and can be used to explore underlying realities. The discussion does not necessarily have to involve wild speculation or theory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Knowledge Topic #1:
Origin of "Conspiracy Theory"

The term "conspiracy theory" has become firmly rooted in pop culture. In the world of fiction, the concept can flourish (e.g. Dan Brown books, 007 movies). However in the real world, the phrase tends to put people off and discourage any attempt at serious discussion. This is the case at least in Western culture. In this regard it is a form of intellectual terrorism. But are you aware of the origin of the term?

Historical Context

The term "conspiracy theory" and its strong negative connotation was popularised by the CIA who hijacked the term and effectively "weaponized" it. This article gives some background:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/dont-fooled-conspiracy-theory-smears.html

Apparently the CIA distributed a memo to its agents in response to growing public skepticism toward the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of JFK. The declassified memo titled "Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report" played a definitive role in making the "conspiracy theory" term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government's increasingly covert programs and activities into question.

Document 1035-960



Summary

The memo outlines a detailed series of actions and techniques to counter and discredit the claims of conspiracy theorists. Instructions to agents include:

a) Employ propaganda assets to refute the attacks of the critics through medium such as book reviews and articles.
b) Advise covert assets in the media to ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion is already taking place.
c) Direct agents to remind their friendly elite contacts (such as politicians and editors) of the Warren Report's integrity and urge them to use their influence to discourage speculation.

The memo also details the additional to counter conspiratorial arguments:

1. Claim the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, based on unreliable eyewitness testimony for example.
2. Claim it would be impossible to conceal a large-scale conspiracy.
3. Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
4. Claim that no significant new evidence has emerged.
5. Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
6. Claim conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
7. Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
8. Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.

A short video about the above is here (just watch 5 minutes from the set point at 25:19). Don't bother with the rest of the video though – it's one of those long ones!

Another interesting article related to this topic (here) lists 25 rules of disinformation (scroll to the bottom for the actual list of 25 points).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Knowledge Topic #2:
Wikipedia

Whilst Wikipedia does have entries about certain "conspiracy" (alternative knowledge topics), its coverage is often wildly inaccurate and serious omissions are made. People attempting to make corrections are never successful - they get blocked and the pages are set back to how they were. Wikipedia editors/moderators are anonymous and not accountable for their actions. Refer to Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez's attempt to post a page about Dr Judy Wood's research (here). Try and find a real name in any of the history of discussion of changes to an article. Students at school and university are often discouraged from using Wikipedia as a reference, due to the lack of integrity it has. Yet links to its pages often come at the top of most google searches.

[Brief Bios]

As you may know, I started an infamous thread on the forums last year which centered on the research of Dr Judy Wood in relation to the events of 9/11. I also highlighted the work of UK researcher Andrew Johnson who, working closely with Dr Wood, actively documented and analysed encounters with fellow "researchers" to reveal an obvious cover-up attempt. Some good audio files on the subject are listed below. They are available to download and/or listen to at your convenience.

01 - Dr Judy Wood with Regina Meredith on CMN - Where Did the Towers Go.mp3
02 - Ambrose Lane with Dr Wood _ Andrew Johnson - The Hutchison Effect - Jan 2008 (1 of 2).mp3
03 - Ambrose Lane with Dr Wood _ Andrew Johnson - The Hutchison Effect - Jan 2008 (2 of 2).mp3
04 - Presentation by attorney Jerry Leaphart - NIST, Data Quality Act - Aug 2007.mp3
05 - Dr Judy Wood _ Andrew Johnson - Cold Fusion and Information Management - Feb 2014.mp3

Brief Bios

		Dr Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise.
		Andrew Johnson earned a degree in Computer Science (with a minor module of Physics) from Lancaster University in 1986. He has worked as a software engineer and a lecturer and is currently a part time tutor for the Open University. He began actively campaigning about 9/11 in 2004.

As tedious as it may be for some, I want to revisit this topic. But before I launch into this thread please note that I don't intend for the subsequent discussions to be solely about 9/11. However I want to first establish some background / context for the following reasons:

a) Past contributors will hopefully approach the material with a fresh mind and eyes.
b) People new to this information will hopefully find the following post comprehensive and insightful.

Below is a list of some of the key evidence of 9/11. I've tried to be thorough and introduce some new information that perhaps got overlooked in the previous thread, but as you can appreciate the list and level of detail is by no means exhaustive. A 500 page book called Where Did the Towers Go has been written on the subject for those who want more detail. Nevertheless there is quite a bit to read here so please bear with me. I've added some pictures too so hopefully it helps to paint the scene.


Key Evidence

1. There was a lack of any appreciable debris pile and seismic signal. Photographs such as the ambulance parked in front of WTC1 and even the well-known flag photo (from a different viewpoint) clearly show a lack of material.

   

Regarding the seismic signal, one thing that perhaps got overlooked in the previous thread was the fact that the signal didn't travel through the earth (rock) on which the buildings were founded. To be technical, no primary and secondary ("P" and "S") waves were recorded; rather only a "surface wave" was present, which is like how a mattress responds when you remove a weight from its surface. Prominent people in the "truth movement" like architect Richard Gage of AE911Truth don't want to talk about the seismic data. Richard Gage instead wants to promote the theory that thermite was somehow involved in the towers' destruction.




2. Pieces of falling debris literally disintegrated into dust before our very eyes. The remaining core columns also turned to dust just a few seconds after the main part of the building had disappeared into dust.

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZMjVXtNUec[/embed]   


3. It was not just two (or three) buildings destroyed that day, but several. In fact, virtually all buildings with a WTC prefix were totally or nearly-totally destroyed. Almost all of WTC3 and WTC4 disappeared completely, again without any appreciable debris pile. Curious vertical holes appeared in WTC5 and WTC6, where the latter appeared to be "cored out" in the middle with its edges remaining. Shockingly, firefighters present at ground level in WTC6, specifically those standing directly in that void, went missing - gone without a trace - while others standing just outside of this affected zone survived.

   




4. People disappeared virtually without a trace. The total number of bodies identified by DNA analysis was about equal to the number of people who left the building ("jumpers") plus those in the building in the lower levels. All others just disappeared. This was even evident in a BBC documentary broadcast on the recent anniversary of 9/11 where the recovery efforts were eventually reduced to scavenging for mere bone fragments.


5. "Toasted cars". About 1400 vehicles spontaneously combusted. The "fires" seemed to target the metal on the cars (not typically combustible) while organic materials like paper and trees were spared. But not everything made of metal was affected, such as street signs and traffic lights, and this gives us a hint as to the phenomenon at play here. Things like street signs and traffic lights are connected to the ground, while cars on rubber tyres are insulated from the ground. Also consider that ambulances may have a grounding feature as a safeguard against electrostatic hazards, which might explain why the ambulance pictured above was spared a "toasting". Furthermore, vehicles that weren't toasted were typically flipped upside-down.




6. Hurricane Erin. The category 3 hurricane was closest to NYC on the day and then moved away as if being controlled. The fact that it received virtually no media attention is suspicious (it wasn't mentioned or even inserted on the weather map on the evening news). Hurricanes produce a static field, like a Tesla coil, and this directly links to the Hutchison Effect phenomenon which utilises the same sort of technology on a small scale.



The Hutchison Effect is a range of anomalous effects to materials (typically metal) including bending, twisting, peeling, instant rusting, levitation, fusion of dissimilar materials and spontaneous fires. All of these effects were seen on 9/11, so the destructive mechanism appears to share similarities with the Hutchison Effect. John Hutchison, the Canadian experimenter after which the phenomenon is named, was attempting to reproduce the work of Nikola Tesla. He creates a static field with a Tesla coil or Van de Graaff generator and using other equipment such as radar introduces different EM waves that interfere to cause an effect. There is a bit of trial and error to this and at first it was just accidentally discovered. He continued to experiment throughout the 1980's and although initially had difficulty replicating an effect can now guarantee one on demand (listen to audio file no. 3 about this). His work attracted attention from military personnel and a report about it was subsequently classified by the Canadian government.

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03UkSRqKs5o[/embed]   

It is interesting to note that Hutchison's samples tend to experience an ongoing effect (continued degradation) which was also evident at the 9/11 site that took an unreasonably long time to "clean up" involving dirt brought in, dumped on site and then hauled away. The nearby Bankers Trust building is another example of ongoing effects (it appears to have been "infected") as it was initially repaired but then had to be completely dismantled and rebuilt. A fire broke out during the repairs in 2007. Compare this and other "fires" seen on 9/11 to Hutchison's boat experiment.





Once Judy Wood cottoned on to the presence of the hurricane and its connection with the Hutchison Effect, she had reached a pivotal point in her research, effectively opening Pandora's Box which in turn sent debunking efforts into overdrive. Grand Poobah of the "truth movement" Jim Fetzer, an apparent supporter of Wood initially, suddenly became hostile at this point in time and was at the helm of this new debunking campaign. Fetzer interviewed video specialist Ace Baker about fake videos Baker had made which appeared to mimic some of the effects seen in Hutchison's videos. This appeared to be an attempt to discredit Hutchison's work.

   

It is important to understand that the totality and nature of the destruction seen on 9/11 is not consistent with conventional destructive mechanisms. A weapon was deployed on the day that literally tore the towers apart and left behind an abundance of evidence reminiscent of the Hutchison Effect. The hurricane could be considered to be one component of the weapon, and although we don't know the specifics of the other components we at least know the effects that they caused. The weapon can be classed as directed energy. We should all be familiar with directed energy – a microwave oven is an everyday domestic example. A laser is another example – however lasers produce heat, and the building didn't burn up or melt (i.e. the destructive mechanism wasn't thermal energy), so we can rule this out as the weapon. Terminology such as "space lasers" or "space beams" has been used to describe Dr Wood's research (partly due to earlier research which considered that advanced weapons technology may have been developed in the Strategic Defence Initiative programme). One of the first people to use the deceptive term "space beams" to describe Dr Wood's research was Steven E Jones, another prominent figure in the so-called "truth movement." Jones has connections to Los Alamos National Laboratory and statements and actions by him between 1989 and 1991 had a seriously detrimental effect on the field of "cold fusion" research (listen to audio file no. 5).




Legal Aspects

With the help from attorney Jerry Leaphart, Dr Wood presented the evidence in court in attempt to prosecute contractors of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) who were tasked with producing the technical report to explain what happened on 9/11. Two legal avenues were pursued; a Request for Corrections (RFC) under the Data Quality Act, and a subsequent Qui Tam or "whistle-blower" case under the False Claims Act. The basis for this legal action was the fact that NIST did not accurately describe what happened to the towers. The report only dealt with the plane impacts and resulting fires up to the point where it looked like the towers would start to collapse, followed by vague wording along the lines of "everything after that was inevitable" to conclude the report. Again, it is important to understand that the totality and nature of the destruction seen on 9/11 is not consistent with conventional destructive mechanisms, so it is hardly surprising that NIST avoided this aspect completely. Considering that directed energy was actually at play on 9/11, how fascinating it is that the two biggest contractors of NIST actually specialise in the research / development of directed energy weapons and the execution of psychological operations (listen to audio file no. 4 about this).

   

The judges of the Qui Tam lawsuit dismissed the case but not legitimately – they effectively "ignored the law" and even stated so in their written decision. If the case had gone ahead, representatives from the two above-mentioned companies, ARA and SAIC, may have been put under oath to disclose more information about the technology that was used on 9/11 – possibly revealing who actually owned it.



Dr Morgan Reynolds, another researcher represented by Jerry Leaphart and former chief economist of the Bush Administration, also filed a case against NIST contractors which focused on the 9/11 planes. Dr Wood does not comment on the planes issue, other than stating that the totality and nature of destruction of the buildings could not have been caused by planes – whether they are real or fake, have passengers on them or not.


The Debunking Crowd

There were earlier efforts by certain forum members to dismiss and deny the evidence, but to date no one here or in the wider world has actually refuted the evidence. Detractors have only succeeded in misrepresenting the evidence and debunking their own propaganda.



One such individual is Myles Power, a science blogger from the UK who was snapped up by Google and trained to become something called an "EDU guru". He makes YouTube videos aiming to debunk "bad-science" which includes a video attempting to debunk Dr Judy Wood's book. Power does not actually refute the evidence contained in the book; instead he largely ignores it, misrepresents information, and resorts to petty ridicule with the impression of sounding intelligent. He also focuses on the chapter in Dr Wood's book which explores the peculiar evidence surrounding the "jumpers". This is a subject that immediately triggers an emotional response, and where it should be approached in a serious and respectful way, Power instead treats it as a joke.



Another character who made his debut early in the debunking scene was Dr Greg Jenkins who conducted a hit-piece in the form of an ambush interview of Dr Wood at a conference she attended. Dr Wood was just an audience member in support of Jim Fetzer and had no idea she would be interviewed, much less filmed. In the video, Jenkins largely ignores or downplays the evidence and insists on focussing on a poor-quality black and white photograph of debris falling from the tower. He tries to dismiss the idea that the debris is predominantly dust, not large steel girders and slabs of concrete. Dr Wood points out the very fine nature of the dust, and Jenkins reacts by adopting a number of blank and confused and sheepish looks, and the discussion essentially goes nowhere.



People may be familiar with alternative media personality Alex Jones. He is well known for sensationalising conspiracy theories with his special blend of hysteria and salesman like rapid-fire speech. He will cover most conspiracy stuff, but will avoid Dr Wood's work like the plague! He won't acknowledge her work and becomes irritated when anyone tries to bring it up on his radio show. This audio clip is most revealing (here). And this one (here).


Free Energy

The full title of Dr Judy Wood's book is "Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free Energy on 9/11." And this is the silver lining – 9/11 was a disclosure of free energy.

For John Hutchison's experiments, he draws a relatively small amount of power to produce substantial effects that would ordinarily require more energy. The Hutchison Effect is therefore, like 9/11, a display of free energy technology.

Free energy tends to gets a bad rap in the mainstream however it is a real phenomenon and has been demonstrated on multiple occasions by independent researchers. It is not considered seriously by mainstream science for various reasons – lobbyist propaganda in part – with the excuse that the phenomenon conflicts with established theory often argued.

A class of free energy experiments relate to low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Early LENR experiments were carried out by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in which they reported anomalous heat (excess heat) produced from their apparatus of a magnitude they attributed to a nuclear process. Their results have been replicated by others including Dr John Bockris, a pioneer of electrochemistry who was initially accused of fraud but later exonerated following three formal investigations. A short video about this (here). Also, an excellent survey article by Dr Edmund Storms gives references to at least 34 studies with positive results using the method of Pons and Fleishman (here).



Another figure that should be mentioned is Dr Eugene Mallove, who was an activist and leader for promoting awareness and encouraging research into alternative energy. This is a great interview with Mallove (here) and the last one he gave before being murdered in 2004.



The Hutchison Effect and the technology used on 9/11 appear to share similarities with LENR experiments in regards to the following:

1.  High energy output to input ratio (over unity)
2.  Absence of hazardous ionising radiation
3.  Absence of high heat during changes to materials which look like they've been caused by heat

It should be noted that LENR is not synonymous with "cold fusion" as a nuclear reaction does not necessarily mean fusion has taken place. Note that the human race has not yet mastered the technology to contain hot fusion – something that happens in the sun. The misleading term "cold fusion" was introduced by physicist Steven E Jones who was also involved in early experiments into the phenomenon. This is the same guy that introduced "space beams" to derail Judy Wood's work. Just a coincidence?




Occam's Razor

The simplest explanation is often the best. Another way of saying this is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

Andrew Johnson expresses this in another way: "Any conclusion can be reached about anything - but the value of that conclusion will be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence ignored".

Here is a short video series made by Adam Dwyer which covers some of the evidence in detail. Adam is an engineer, like myself, and creator of the webpage www.debamboozled.com. I think you'll agree that Adam has certainly captured the epic nature of the Dr Judy Wood saga in true Hollywood blockbuster style!

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2mg5ndzVgg&list=PL_cJ8k_C3XEWi9IrA7dKse0vo8SE6J1oJ[/embed]

RIP David Bowie.

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3FlGZo6Qc[/embed]

I miss Judy!!!

You and me both, Mandle me old mate!

Sorry.... I don't have any new Judy videos.... but here's one I found that people might find interesting and perhaps a bit more sobering (yet still with a conspiracy vibe to it, for old times' sake).

Political author Gearoid O Colmain discusses the Paris attacks with RT International.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L7GAbVhjTSw

[Crimson Wizard]

Crimson Wizard

The content in that link is just an example of the type of bullshit you find on the Internet that tries to muddy the waters. I do not care for the information in that article - I just picked it at random. Here's another link on Michael Zebuhr that doesn't go off on a tangent.

NickyNyce

Do you have any idea how ignorant and hypocritical you sound? Please read what I said in my last post again carefully. Then read it again. Then think about it. Then if you can tone down the mob mentality hysterics please respond in a more intellectual manner.

[Turn off your debunking brain]

Thanks Mandle et al for your concerns about my mental health. This debate is doing my head in, but otherwise I think I'm okay - no more insane than usual.

Note - there's a bit to read below. Please read carefully and don't rush to respond. Let it sink in.

Turn off your debunking brain

I think it is clear what I mean by this. Obviously don't turn off your brain completely, just the part of it that is prone to dismiss the facts we see in front of us. In other words, don't be in denial. At this stage I'm not asking you to completely commit to the idea of a directed energy weapon (after all, after 2.5 months of debating we're apparently still not at that level yet). What I am asking you to do is at least acknowledge the evidence. Approach it in an unbiased fashion. Do not react to it as if it is easily explained. The evidence is not just “a car was destroyed” - it is more subtle than that. For example, corrosion or accelerated rusting appears on many of those cars than can't be explained by a conventional explanation. Do not dismiss the many witnesses who say they saw these vehicles spontaneously combust and explode. This is not a natural thing to happen. Proximity to the WTC buildings should not justify this phenomena, so even in the event that cars were towed to FDR Drive, you still need to explain what happened to them.

Btw - I never said I was completely sure car 2723 wasn't towed â€" I was just suspicious.

I've endeavoured to point you in the right direction, but ultimately you need to make the journey of discovery for yourself. That sounds clichéd, I know, but how else can I word this? I can't continue to spoon feed you this information. It is very draining for me mentally. It will be hard for you to break away from the mob mentality of this forum thread, turn off your debunking brain and think independently, but it is crucial for you to do this.

If you can look at pieces of the evidence and say “I don't know - I can't explain this" then at least that is a better and more honest response. Be honest with yourself and resist the mob mentality. You might be unpopular, or labelled insane, or called everything under the sun, but who cares? At least you are questioning things that don't make sense. It's better than being ignorant.

Mellissa Doi

I want to illustrate one of my points above of mob mentality by using Mandle's response to Melissa Doi's recording as an example. I appreciate Mandle's efforts to address the information I present, but he's got his debunking brain switch on rather than his logical brain. Either he has issues with problem solving skills or he is just following the mob mentality, or both. Surely I'm not the only one who can see the flaws in his arguments. If he himself can't see the problem with what he's saying, then can someone else other than me speak up? Do you have the courage to break away from the mob and step outside your comfort zone? I don't want to let this ignorance slip through and not get picked up. Here's the scenario again:

Imagine you're in a room filled with smoke and you're literally in the thick of it and can barely see because the air is thick with smoke. You are complaining of breathing difficulties. Do you seriously think you wouldn't cough just once? If you are complaining of how unbearably hot it is, do you seriously think your brain is going to be functioning properly? Does adrenaline really help in these situations? Would you even be conscious? If you don't know the answer to these questions, it's okay to say “I don't know” rather than to promote ignorance.

This woman is now dead. We are listening to her last dying words, and it is heartbreaking. Believe me, I am brought to tears when I hear stuff like this. No one wants to listen to this, but to turn away is to ignore her and her story.

Melissa Doi believed the room was full of smoke but she didn't know any better â€" she was just describing the situation as best she could. She may have mistaken the fumes for smoke, but there were others in the building moments before it collapsed (who luckily escaped) who knew it wasn't smoke and explicitly say this. I can point you in the direction of this evidence too if you are interested. In fact there's a whole lot more evidence that hasn't been discussed or even mentioned yet in this thread that I'd love to talk about. But there's hardly any point talking about it if you aren't prepared to turn off your debunking brain and listen.

Why isn't Judy Wood dead yet?

Try Googling "Judy Wood". What do you see?

Her obituary seems to be a hot topic. But why indeed isn't she dead yet? Simple. Because she's INSANE! Completely MENTAL! Space beams! Death rays! Nutty physics!

Now try Googling names of some of the "truth movement" key players, like Steven E Jones. Apparently no one is concerned about endangerment of his life.

It seems you don't need to kill someone off to run a cover-up. Just marginalise them. Even if Wood did get bumped off, that wouldn't deter others from picking up where she left off. It would probably only strengthen the cause.

Judy is quite brave to do what she's done. She says in an interview that she felt in a position better than most to pursue this, not having family herself.

Her colleague Andrew Johnson does have a family. His e-book 9/11 Finding the Truth which documents Judy Wood's dealings with the "truth movement" is free to download. The fact that it's free I believe debunks the idea that people are just out there to make a profit from tragedy. What a childish idea.

Another colleague of Judy Wood sadly was murdered in 2006. His name was Michael Zebuhr.

[Car 2723]

Car 2723

I don't think it's the same car fellas. Just look at the driver's side door. There is a clearly defined line across the door in the Church Street photo that is not present in the other photo. I'm just noticing the differences. I can't say for sure of course, but I'm seeing more differences than similarities. The "2723" and "wax spot" would be pretty easy to photoshop in my opinion. This smells like disinformation to me. Do you have any other "proof" that this car was towed? What about the other cars? Did you consider the witness account of stuff blowing up this side of town (EMT Alan Cooke)? There seems to be more information available indicating that extraordinary things did happen on FDR Drive and elsewhere than to the contrary.

---

Khris

I believe you're a smart guy. Please do something useful and calculate how much debris we should realistically see at Ground Zero. Here's the relevant info again (you can play around with the variables if you like):

Details for one of the WTC buildings Height: 417 m Footprint: 63 m x 63 m Concrete: 212,500 cubic yards = 162,468 cubic meters Steel: 100,000 Ton / (8 Ton per cubic m) = 12,500 cubic meters Total volume of building: 1,655,073 cubic meters Total volume of concrete and steel: 174,968 cubic meters Approx. volume of disturbed material in a pile: 262,452 cubic meters * * Bulking factor of 1.5 used to incorporate voids.

More info:

R = 2.5 x building footprint (approximate, G.Jenkins)

Basement vol. that might have collapsed = 63 m x 63 m x 15 m, just above the subway tunnels.









---

Dustification

No one has commented on this recording yet.

Sample of recording with commentary at end:
http://www.mediafire.com/listen/pj1t66319f8w7vd/dustification.mp3

Full recording on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBjsKDagqk

The woman is Melissa Doi. She made a call to 911 emergency response. The recording is hard to listen to, so discretion is advised. It might be hard for some people to disconnect emotionally but it is somewhat necessary to do this to actually analyse the subtle evidence in the recording.

Some interesting things to note from the recording:

• Over and over again Melissa Doi emphasises how hot it is.
• She emphasises that there is such a degree of "smoke" that she can barely see.
• In spite of stating there is extreme heat, she cannot see any fire.
• She complains she is having trouble breathing, but can still talk and does not cough once.
• Although she emphasises how hot it is, Melissa Doi's speech is rapid and emotional, not lethargic. Someone who is physically hot (e.g. sauna, hot tub) is lethargic, not panicked.

---

Cover-up and Censorship

You cannot deny the extraordinary evidence Judy Wood has compiled. Never mind the extraordinary explanation; for now, just turn off your debunking brain for a moment and allow the evidence to sink in. The fact that the extraordinary evidence has only just recently been brought to our attention (via me, via a random YouTube video discovered by me in January this year) strongly implies a deliberate suppression or cover-up of that information. Bear in mind Judy Wood took this evidence to court in 2007 - eight years ago!

---

Consider this: Medical student Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, a donating member of the AE911Truth organization, had his online profile deleted immediately following a well-intended email to the founder Richard Gage regarding Dr Judy Wood's work.

Rodriguez confronted Gage at an AE911Truth Event in April 2011.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBP9mNqdLqM

Rodriguez also set up a Wikipedia page in April 2010 describing the research and court case of Dr Judy Wood but it was deleted as documented in this article:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=60

Deleted Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Judy_Wood

Please people, think about this. If you're still inclined to think car 2723 was towed, think about it in the context of this blatant agenda of censorship.

Finally, Rodriguez has this to say on his YouTube channel:

9/11 is irrefutable proof that affordable forms of energy technology, such as those discovered and inspired by the great Nikola Tesla, do indeed exist and could be providing our entire planet with clean, sustainable, limitless energy, right now. 9/11 is irrefutable proof that countless lives and resources have been wasted on wars of death and destruction, all as a result of an extremely inaccurate, unscientific story, when these precious lives and resources could instead be used to improve our beautiful country and planet. Most importantly, 9/11 is irrefutable proof that each and every one of us is capable of slicing through the dishonesty and corruption by thinking critically and studying the available facts for ourselves.

[NickyNyce]

NickyNyce

It's just come to my attention that police car 2723 was indeed on FDR Drive.

Well, shucks. It must have been towed from Church Street.

Judy Wood has been debunked!

Unless... No! Hang on a second. Is this really the same car?







It may have had the Photoshop Phrenzy treatment. Spot the difference? I've highlighted discrepancies in green. Note Crazy Asian Dude added for comic effect.

---

Witnesses

Don't forget witness testimony to stuff blowing up this side of town (EMT Alan Cooke).

So yeah, cars were blowing up / spontaneously combusting here.

Why?

What about the car park also some distance from the site? These cars definitely weren't towed because we have before and after shots of the cars parked there.

"The parked cars that had been parked there were all on fire and which wasn't on fire was exploding" (Paramedic Gary Smiley, p.12).

---

Dustification

Did anyone want to comment on this recording?

http://www.mediafire.com/listen/pj1t66319f8w7vd/dustification.mp3

It is a recording of someone inside the building as it was turning to dust. The recording is hard to listen to, so discretion is advised. It might be hard for some people to disconnect emotionally but it is somewhat necessary to do this to actually analyse the subtle evidence in the recording. The person believes there is fire in the building because she feels hot but can't see anything in front of her due to smoke. But is it smoke? Listen to commentary after the recording too. It should be obvious that the the building was indeed turning to dust well before the collapse. This would explain the other evidence, such as 'free fall' collapse time and lack of debris.

[Snarky]

Snarky

The key element of the pancake model is that when floors from above crash into the lower ones, they'll push them down (so the lower floors won't just start free-falling from a rest state).

Depends on how much energy is consumed at each step. If nearly all energy is lost with just enough to trigger the next floor, then the next floor would start from rest. We can do this for every floor, or every 10 floors (thus different arrangements of billiard balls) which is synonymous with modelling the different scenarios of energy losses. To reiterate, the different arrangements of billiard balls is synonymous with the different coloured lines on my beautiful graph. The billiard ball example is just another way to express the idea. I agree it might be a bit clumsy. Judy should have used my beautiful graph instead.



The 9/11 commission report itself said the collapse took 10 seconds. Any other value in the vicinity of 10 seconds is at the lower end of the range of values. If you argue 100 seconds is a ridiculous time, then wouldn't it be fair to say 10 seconds is equally ridiculous? Nevertheless, this is what we see.

------------------------------------------

Pulverisation

I accept the mechanisms of pulverisation Snarky mentions. But this is all kinetic energy collisions. Pulverisation is defined here as breaking down a material into to finer particles by kinetic energy, e.g. hitting a rock against another rock. With the random nature of the collapse, you'd expect to see random size pieces of concrete and stuff. But what we found was predominantly dust size particles (i.e. silt and clay size particles).



As RickJ pointed out:

From the Hoffman article: "It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder."

In a normal collapse, building debris should not consist of predominantly dust size. Normal building debris should also contain recognisable office things.

------------------------------------------

Dustification

RickJ pointed out that the collapse resulted in "not smoke but rather dense and thick dust".

I would have to agree.

http://www.mediafire.com/listen/pj1t66319f8w7vd/dustification.mp3

Here is a sound byte cropped from another source I posted earlier. It is a recording of someone inside the building as it was turning to dust. The recording is hard to listen to, so discretion is advised. It might be hard for some people to disconnect emotionally but it is somewhat necessary to do this to actually analyse the subtle evidence in the recording.

------------------------------------------

Debris Pile

Given the buildings turned mostly to dust as RickJ has discovered, it's no wonder there is a lack of debris (comprising larger size pieces) here. Never mind the dust radius, what about just normal everyday debris! Where is it?! No seriously, where is it? Can someone do some calculations please?







------------------------------------------

Crimson Wizard

You make some very good points and have me scratching my head. And now I've got a headache! Well done sir. Indeed we could be comparing apples and oranges here. I agree this line of inquiry is inconclusive until we at least have a better understanding of the data.

------------------------------------------

NickyNyce

Your debunking videos also have me scratching my head but not in the same feel-good way that Crimson Wizard's arguments did. I can't figure out what the videos are meant to prove. The second video shows two images of the same car parked on Church Street. The tree and fencing are visible in both photos. Then we see an image of Church Street at a later date with hoarding up around the site, a clean street and nearby pedestrians. And the car is gone too of course. What we don't see is that same car on FDR Drive.

You're claiming to debunk the vehicles issue but not addressing the hard facts. A fucking fire truck blew up and was witnessed blowing up! Why indeed?

[RickJ]

RickJ

Obviously a progressively increasing number of floors have more mass than an single floor.  So as the collapse proceeds, the falling mass's velocity loss is proportionally smaller and smaller.

Yes, sorry. That does make sense. D'oh! I'm not sure why I read that wrong. You are right - the change in velocity gets smaller and smaller until a sort of terminal velocity is reached. I knew that because that's what I saw in the data when I produced those lovely graphs. Here they are again.



Judy Wood just uses two equal masses as a demonstration of the principle. But you are right - if there is a larger mass to begin with, then the velocity loss is proportionally smaller.

----------------------------------------------

I'll respond to the other posts in due course.

Watch this space..

[RickJ]

RickJ

1. The buildings fell too quickly

Obviously a progressively increasing number of floors have more mass than an single floor.  So as the collapse proceeds, the falling mass's velocity loss is proportionally smaller and smaller.

This is incorrect. Conservation of momentum says that as two masses impact and combine (inelastic collision), then the resulting velocity decreases. This means the collapse could not have been faster than free fall speed. My argument is that resistance in the progression (assuming there's enough energy to keep it going) should slow things down and produce an overall collapse time somewhere between 10 and 100 seconds depending on how much energy is lost along the way.



The towers did indeed fall near free fall speed. Does this make sense?

The demolition expert you mention, Brent Blanchard, focusses on the implausibility of a controlled demolition by conventional means (e.g. dynamite). This is fine, but he instead supports the progressive gravity-driven collapse model and does not question the implausibility of this. In reality, under the gravity-driven "pancake" model, there wouldn't be enough energy to pulverise floors and also keep the collapse going. *

*

Spoiler

Wood references:

Trumpman
Paper: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm

Hoffman
Paper: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html
YouTube vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKG2nWlQM80

[close]

---

2. A larger debris pile should have resulted (not predominantly dust size)



This picture shows a lot of dust. If debris is present, it is obscured by dust. Look at images in the aftermath that show conditions unobscured by dust to see what the debris radius is. I just used the debris radius quoted by Greg Jenkins. You can use a larger radius if you like but ultimately I'd still expect to see that ambulance buried by rubble. Why not try doing come calculations? See what you get.

---

3. A larger seismic signal should have been recorded

"[The article says] the seismic data is consistent with a building collapse and that a stronger signal would have been expected if explosives were used.  The signal was weaker because no explosives were used."

I agree explosives weren't used and the seismic data may be consistent with a building collapse, but is it consistent with a 110 story building founded on bedrock?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crimson Wizard

You made some good points earlier which deserve a response.

"Does the Kingdome seismic data include effect from explosives?"

I don't know. Here is a video showing the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome stadium. I'd imagine the initial explosives stage would be treated separately from the final collapse stage and the calculated Richter value would apply to the latter (although I can still hear explosives while it is collapsing).

Assuming the Seattle Kingdome collapsed "all at once", and the WTC tower collapsed "in parts", shouldn't this be reflected in the seismic signal?

I'd argue this would contradict the official "pancake" theory of collapse. If you accept pancaking of floors, then we should see jack-hammering type impulses all the way down, increasing in magnitude as the mass accumulated, with the biggest "all at once" impulse at the end.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

NickyNyce

Firetruck

Regarding your video.

I'm not convinced this video proves anything. What caused the wilting? Does falling debris cause a truck to wilt? Fire might be a more likely culprit; after all, we've seen evidence of vehicles on fire elsewhere.



Curiously, it seems this same fire truck is now in the 9/11 memorial museum. Can you explain ALL the damage? Fire might explain wilting, but what about the corrosion?

Also, don't forget witness testimony of fire trucks exploding! (Lieutenant Rene Davila, p. 27/28)

---

Lack of debris and dust

The buildings may be 95% air, but the twin towers together comprised about 1 million tonnes of steel and concrete. Here's the data again:

Details for one of the WTC buildings Height: 417 m Footprint: 63 m x 63 m Concrete: 212,500 cubic yards = 162,468 cubic meters Steel: 100,000 Ton / (8 Ton per cubic m) = 12,500 cubic meters Total volume of building: 1,655,073 cubic meters Total volume of concrete and steel: 174,968 cubic meters Approx. volume of disturbed material in a pile: 262,452 cubic meters * * Bulking factor of 1.5 used to incorporate voids.

Why not try doing some calculations? How high should the debris pile be? Given the ambulance was only parked 10 m away from the building, how likely is it that it survived let alone is visible at all?

I accept things can be smashed into pieces. But I'd expect the pieces to range in size: from tiny to medium and large. I'd expect some pieces to be large enough to be recognisable. The witness testimony however indicates an overwhelming lack of recognisable objects.