
Open research to uncover the truths surrounding events of September 11, 2001.


The 9/11 Truth Movement is being controlled by the 9/11 perps, and has been since day one. They control who becomes popular in the movement. (i.e. Steven "Los Alamos" Jones, Mike "Peak Oil" Ruppert, Robert "Star Wars" Bowman, David Ray "GOD" Griffin, etc.) The perps take advantage of dumbed-down Americans in the Truth Movement by making them think certain things are merely "theories" instead of scientific fact. They know that most of the Truth Movement (and most Americans) are incapable of applying simple physical laws to certain events. They control what theories become mainstream in the movement. (i.e. LIHOP, Able Danger, remote control airplanes, hijackers still alive, thermite, etc.) In addition, the 9/11 perps have been brainwashing the Truth Movement into believing that certain "theories" (whether they're true or not) are "harmful" to the Movement. These theories, or actually, "facts" (#2 & #3 below), are what the perps want to be kept hidden.
There are Three Core Truths the 9/11 perps don't want to become mainstream:
1. 9/11 was NOT orchestrated by the Bush administration. 9/11 was orchestrated by the Global Elite... the people behind the curtain. (i.e. the media and private bankers.) These people don't care in the least if Bush is impeached, since doing so would not affect their agenda. In fact, it would HELP them by distracting people from the real 9/11 criminals!
2. The South Tower "plane strike" shown on TV was a CGI, and not a real plane. Aluminum airplanes don't meld into steel/concrete buildings. Scientists and researchers have come forward to explain this, as it violates basic laws of physics. But not one scientist has refuted it. Why is that? The answer is simple: It would generate publicity. More scientists would look into it, and realize that it was a CGI. The 9/11 perps don't want this. So their "scientists" constantly refer to (mistaken or lying) eyewitnesses, and photos of (planted) wreckage, as "proof" of a real plane. They know this would be effective since the Truth Movement is not smart enough to understand that in a court of law, witnesses and photos mean absolutely nothing when contradicted by Laws of Physics.
3. The WTC was destroyed by some sort of Directed Energy Weapon All the evidence points to this. Only DEW can account for all the anomalies.
Steven Jones has extensive experience at the Los Alamos Laboratories with Directed Energy Weapons.
It has been shown that Jones is a government plant (just as he was with Cold Fusion) to distract people from the real issues with his thermate nonsense. His research has been proven faulty and deceitful, and has been linked to two suspicious murders: Eugene Mallove (Cold Fusion) and Michael Zebuhr (9/11). Each one of them was involved in exposing research that Jones was trying to hide.
911Blogger is purposely and systematically censoring TV-Fakery and Directed Energy Weapons. A number of months ago, 911Blogger changed the requirements for blog entries. Now blogs must be submitted and "approved" before showing up. Needless to say, most blogs related to TV-Fakery and Directed Energy Weapons, and those who promote it, never show up. Another disgraceful addition to 911Blogger is a new voting system where comments with a score of less than negative three are automatically hidden, requiring the reader to click on a show-comment tab. A hidden comment would give the observer the impression that the information is not worth reading. (It's not unreasonable to assume that at least one admin purposely lowers the scores.) Another form of censorship comes from several "regulars" who post on a regular basis. These people do everything possible to distract others from looking at evidence.
One of 911Blogger's admins (Alex Floum aka GeorgeWashington) is an associate of Steven Jones. He is one of the biggest promoters of LIHOP and impeaching Bush on that site.
911Blogger is a government front designed to distract people from the real evidence, and promote red herrings and misinformation. Was 911Blogger designed this way from day one? I don't know.
Are the four people mentioned in the first paragraph "in on it"? Possibly, but I don't really believe so. Steven Jones definitely is.
The 9/11 Perps are purposely leading the Truth Movement to a dead end.
great blog
great blog, CB_Brooklyn :)
I was banned at digg.com awhile ago.
This needs a digg and shoutwire.
If i've time, i will also PR it with my web2.0/3.0 tools incl. at crispy etc...
Excellent post
Coffinman
Of course it was designed like this!
It's an essential part of the plan to divert and dissipate the energy of those who would get to the truth.
They want the masses to see the real researchers as "fringe lunatics", but they can only do so by hiding what we say from their victims.
This post has been added to my "Orwellian mind control" page:
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/orwellian_mind_control.htm
Digg It
Digg It!
Scientific method.
"But not one scientist has refuted it."
I can bring this to a broad perspective in that, science should not have to disprove conjectural claims. It's the responsibility of the ones forming the theory to write a paper and have others in a given field review it.
To say with absolutism that "The plane is CGI" is no different than the NIST saying "Global collapse was inevitable".
You formed your view, now you have to back it up.
____________________________________________________________________
Somewhere between "the government did nothing" and "the government did everything" lies The Truth.
your logic is faulty.
NIST's claim that "Global collapse was inevitable" is a false conclusion because they made the claim without examining and providing data.
The CGI at the WTC is considered fact since it's backed by basic physical laws. And as I've said, no scientist has refuted it. Several scientists have spoken up against Tv-Fakery, but not one attempt of a refute of the physics involved. Instead they cite eyewitnesses (proven to be mistaken, or outright liars), and photos of wreckage (proven to be planted.)
My view is already formed and backed by the Laws of Physics.
I'm worried about "the truth movement".
"My view is already formed and backed by the Laws of Physics."
Well, then there is no point in continuing debating with you.
You lack of knowledge is scary.
"3. The WTC was destroyed by some sort of Directed Energy Weapon All the evidence points to this. Only DEW can account for all the anomalies."
Your understanding of "physics" is atrocious. A DEW brought down the Towers? Before I begin my rant, I must seriously ask if you are abusing some form of a controlled substance.
Lasers spark when you use them. Examplehttp://www.apsm.co.uk/images/laser-cutter.png.
Why? Bits of metal get superheated. I recommend sticking some foil in your microwave and watching the sparks. When metal is heated, it sparks. Got it? My two years of experience in a machine shop has taught me this.
Before I engage you in a pitched flame war, I need you to provide me with some of your "evidence" so I have something to attack.
Instead of providing more evidence to back up your claim, you go one some tangent about a random researcher. Ironic, considering that you are accusing someone of OBFUSCATING an issue huh?
Wow what a tone you have.
I never claimed to be a physics expert. But I am a self proclaimed expert in "common sense".
Lasers and microwaves are separate entities and you are advised to do some research before shooting your mouth off again. Just because you see a spark in your microwave or your little machine shop doesn't mean a thing. Sorry.
Check my blogs for evidence that these types of weapons exist.
Check out Dr Judy Wood's paper entitled "The Star Wars Beam Weapon" for all the evidence you will need.
One quote from her paper: The World Trade Center (WTC) towers did not "collapse" on 9/11/01; they were pulverized (blown up) before that was even a possibility. Below, we will discuss how this was done.
btw, I certainly hope you're not one of those who think the Twin Towers were destroyed by "Impact Damage / Fire". If you're a "boxcutter believer" (as I call them) then you're living in the Land of the Lost.
Advancing institutional "science" vs. introducing evidence
Institutional "science" is sharply distinguished from (and even at cross-purposes with) unbiased scientific method.
Reasonable hypotheses (some form of non-ballistic and non-explosive weaponry) are formed based on available evidence.
Evidence has to be validated and a documentary source trail established for things like photos and video.
From my point of view, the material, video and photographic evidence of likely ExoW use is substantive enough to introduce as evidence in court.
Likewise with the transparently obvious video fakery of both the CNN "ghostplane" cartoon,, and the equally implausible Fairbanks "karate-chop plane", ... aluminum and fibreglass slicing through steel-reinforced concrete
These are the words published by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ Online) in an article about Debra Burlingame, widow of one of legendary plotline pilots:
".....But they have not forgotten the sight of a 200,000-pound aircraft slicing through heavy steel and concrete as easily as a knife through butter....."
http://www.apapdp.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=661&...
Hmm.. looks like WSJ Online has pulled the original article, except for subscribers .... wonder what's up with that ?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116536358202641738.html
Validating scientific hypotheses about what precisely happened in Manhattan on 9/11 (or in Shanksville or at the Pentagon) is simply a matter of formally introducing the volumes of photographic and video evidence already abundantly supplied by this site, and others.
Biut anyone is free to question the validity of the evidence introduced, or the interpretaion of it.
Sure ... we have evidence of conventional explosions at the WTC, in addition to ear-witness testimony.
But we also have visual photographic and video material, along with dozens of "toasted cars", etc... to show modes and levels of destruction well beyond the capabiity of conventional explosives.
This says it all about a
This says it all about a certain somebody
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/02/757-in-shanksville-vs-helicopter-in.html