Steven Jones and Niels Harrit are very likely the most prominent nano-thermite advocates when it comes to 9/11. They have of course given out the paper in which it was claimed that nano-thermite was found. Others claim it was paint chips...
nano-thermite has been one of the leading theories among truthers. Not everyone has believed in it among the truthers, but seemingly a majority has and still likely do.
Interesting discussion I had with 2 nano-researchers
Yesterday was interesting for me as I was at an institute where I have studied to finish parts of something I studied earlier. This institute is at college- or university-level and certainly has a lot of advanced technology also compared with the rest of the world.
One department deals with nano-technology, like materials and physics at the nano-level. I have not studied that topic though and never been there even though I've passed it many times as it's in the same building as where I was. Not even a teacher I talked to said he was sort of related to them.
I've been curious about this department before, but not gone farther than that. Yesterday though I saw 2 men that maybe looked Pakistani or Indian that seemed to belong to it so I thought I could ask them if they had heard about nano-thermite ever. They had not.
but some of what they told me was very interesting and especially one thing, which perhaps isn't exactly news, but it's not something anyone I have seen have brought up in 9/11-discussions about thermite before(I may have missed it of course).
First, one man I had seen exit the department, told me that if you make something nano-sized, the melting point usually drops, decreases. That's pretty important to keep in mind if we imagine someone wanted something that could withstand fire...
The Second, most important thing, which the first is a part of, is that the other man told me that properties at the nano-level of a material often changes. So, he told me for example that Gold at the nano-scale is not golden in color, but green! He also mentioned some other element or compound that at the nano-level became very strong if you made like a coil or like thin "rope" of it. He also told me about a research project, but I'm not sure I should mention that here.
This 2nd man told me many properties could change at the nano-level like electric conductivity and others mentioned before and more.
Questions
My discussion with these 2 men made me think that maybe Steven Jones, Niels Harrit and others don't even know how thermite works at the nano-scale? How can they be certain that thermite which works in one way at the macro-level ("normal" size) will behave the same way at the nano-scale?
I will maybe try to seek out another department more specialized in materials than this one that the 2nd man I talked to recommended me to contact and ask more about this...
Disclaimers
Small "disclaimer" here: I know several have claimed that the US military have nano-thermite as used in demolition or at least had, but I have not seen it proven as far as I can remember. I'm not saying that is not true, or that thermite cannot work the same way at the nano-scale, but I'm trying to point out that at least in the 9/11 conspiracy-world the properties of nano-thermite has not been researched at all as far as I know. By that I don't mean dust samples from Ground Zero, but research on known thermite at the nano-level where its properties are tested and documented.
2nd "disclaimer" is that research on this has been done that I'm just not aware of. If so it's my bad, but I thought this was interesting to bring up.
onsdag 21 oktober 2015
tisdag 18 augusti 2015
Alex Jones joined my FB-group...
I haven't written so much about myself, but I am on FaceBook as well as most who have read this blog knows.
I also have a group there about 9/11, called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are an Inside Job!". I take a stance in the group against the conspiracy theories against 9/11, but I welcome truthers and debunkers alike. I want there to be fair & equal treatment of all members as long as they don't break any rules in a bad way. A stance is also taken against anti-semitism so I have decided that Israel, Jews and Zionists/Zionism are off limits.
I try to say with the group name that many conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 come from Americans, so they are an "inside job" one can say these theories or those that spout them. I also give some examples of Americans who have done this like Sofia Shafquat who made "9/11 Mysteries" (video), Richard Gage, the Loose Change-boys and others.
Chief among them though is Alex Jones so I list him first.
Well, one day I was in another 9/11-group where truthers are mocked, but are also very active. We were discussing something and Alex Jones' name came up. Another guy made a very good comment about Alex Jones, which I thought was spot on:
So, I copied it and posted it in my group as a stand alone post everyone can see (my group is public), as seen above. The same day, I saw a request to join the group from an "Alex Jones". I first thought it was one of the truthers I fought with at times in the other group who joined with a fake account because he thinks I talk about Alex Jones too much. But when I looked at the Alex Jones that asked to join my group, it seemed like the official personal account of the real Alex Jones (he has a page too). I may be mistaken, but I am fairly sure it's his personal account at least. You can view it here.
Here you can see Alex Jones request to join. It says he has 23 friends in the group. The "funny language" is Swedish, which happens to be my native language.
So, I let him in and he liked 2 of my comments when I said this was his account and not his page on the post where I welcomed him to the group. See below:
It says I added him to the group and some comments are not shown. Alex Jones also "liked" Margery's comments and another person's comment. Apart from this I have not seen him being active in the group.
Since before I have Dan Bidondi in the group, who is a reporter for Alex Jones, or has been. I haven't been sure about if it really was him or not, but teased him a bit and when I made an insulting post about Alex Jones, I often tagged Bidondi and told him to show it to Alex Jones... That COULD be a reason why AJ joined, but I don't know. Nor do I know what he plans to do in the group either.
He shows a sense of humor or something by asking to join when I posted a comment which pretty much trashed him. I thought that was hilarious.
Future will tell what AJ will do in my group if anything, but if this truly is AJ (one can never be too certain), then I feel like I have personally come pretty much "full circle" in my 9/11 debunking or 9/11-interest as I started to become interested in the 9/11-conspiracies after seeing his "old" movie "Terrorstorm".
Thank you for reading.
Happy debunking/truthing!
I also have a group there about 9/11, called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are an Inside Job!". I take a stance in the group against the conspiracy theories against 9/11, but I welcome truthers and debunkers alike. I want there to be fair & equal treatment of all members as long as they don't break any rules in a bad way. A stance is also taken against anti-semitism so I have decided that Israel, Jews and Zionists/Zionism are off limits.
I try to say with the group name that many conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 come from Americans, so they are an "inside job" one can say these theories or those that spout them. I also give some examples of Americans who have done this like Sofia Shafquat who made "9/11 Mysteries" (video), Richard Gage, the Loose Change-boys and others.
Chief among them though is Alex Jones so I list him first.
Well, one day I was in another 9/11-group where truthers are mocked, but are also very active. We were discussing something and Alex Jones' name came up. Another guy made a very good comment about Alex Jones, which I thought was spot on:
So, I copied it and posted it in my group as a stand alone post everyone can see (my group is public), as seen above. The same day, I saw a request to join the group from an "Alex Jones". I first thought it was one of the truthers I fought with at times in the other group who joined with a fake account because he thinks I talk about Alex Jones too much. But when I looked at the Alex Jones that asked to join my group, it seemed like the official personal account of the real Alex Jones (he has a page too). I may be mistaken, but I am fairly sure it's his personal account at least. You can view it here.
Here you can see Alex Jones request to join. It says he has 23 friends in the group. The "funny language" is Swedish, which happens to be my native language.
So, I let him in and he liked 2 of my comments when I said this was his account and not his page on the post where I welcomed him to the group. See below:
It says I added him to the group and some comments are not shown. Alex Jones also "liked" Margery's comments and another person's comment. Apart from this I have not seen him being active in the group.
Since before I have Dan Bidondi in the group, who is a reporter for Alex Jones, or has been. I haven't been sure about if it really was him or not, but teased him a bit and when I made an insulting post about Alex Jones, I often tagged Bidondi and told him to show it to Alex Jones... That COULD be a reason why AJ joined, but I don't know. Nor do I know what he plans to do in the group either.
He shows a sense of humor or something by asking to join when I posted a comment which pretty much trashed him. I thought that was hilarious.
Future will tell what AJ will do in my group if anything, but if this truly is AJ (one can never be too certain), then I feel like I have personally come pretty much "full circle" in my 9/11 debunking or 9/11-interest as I started to become interested in the 9/11-conspiracies after seeing his "old" movie "Terrorstorm".
Thank you for reading.
Happy debunking/truthing!
tisdag 4 augusti 2015
Truthers are...deniers?
At almost every major event for some years now, truthers and other conspiracy theorists have opposed and denied that things went down as "the media" claims it did. Examples of this are the Boston bombings, Sandy hook-shooting etc..
It's like they have a knee-jerk reaction to deny anything the mainstream media ("MSM") says, regardless of what it says.
How many of you would be willing to bet they would not claim that the next shooting we'll hear about in the news will be claimed to be some "false flag" to take away your rights in one way or another?
Apparently, many of them see the world in a totally different way those of us who don't think like that.
The human mind surely is amazing....
I'm not angry at those who genuinely believe in what they say normally. I do oppose liars and deceivers though.
Alex Jones is an example of such a deceiver. What's good is that even many truthers know this by now.
As an aside, it can be noted that some (certainly not all) truthers tend to lean towards "doubting" that the Holocaust actually happened, or at least as has been stated in our history books and, again, in the news...
It's like they have a knee-jerk reaction to deny anything the mainstream media ("MSM") says, regardless of what it says.
How many of you would be willing to bet they would not claim that the next shooting we'll hear about in the news will be claimed to be some "false flag" to take away your rights in one way or another?
Apparently, many of them see the world in a totally different way those of us who don't think like that.
The human mind surely is amazing....
I'm not angry at those who genuinely believe in what they say normally. I do oppose liars and deceivers though.
Alex Jones is an example of such a deceiver. What's good is that even many truthers know this by now.
As an aside, it can be noted that some (certainly not all) truthers tend to lean towards "doubting" that the Holocaust actually happened, or at least as has been stated in our history books and, again, in the news...
måndag 3 augusti 2015
Truthers - meticulous on some, non-questioning on others...
To make my point with this post, I will use a woman's speech as an example. I don't mean to so much to go after her, even if I criticize her here for sure. She's not alone in acting this way among truthers.
Barbara Honegger and her speech
Barbara Honegger has a 3-hour video on YouTube of a speech she held which some of you may have seen (I have actually). Her video is called "Behind the Smoke Curtain" and you can see it here. 3 hours and 5 minutes to be exact.
I admit that I learned some new things, especially in the first half (maybe more than half).
In this video Barbara discusses the crash of AA77 into the Pentagon, or rather, that she thinks it didn't do that and why she things so.
1st half of the video
The first half of the video is devoted to the details of what went down at the Pentagon. In this part, I learned some new details. Actually, I cannot recall them right now, but I learned some new things for sure.
She was pretty meticulous and detailed here. This is one point with this post (the meticulous part).
She did chose to bring forth some witnesses while not bringing up other witnesses. So, she deliberately skewed what people saw at the Pentagon to paint a picture. One might call this deception really.
You can check out many witnesses' statement + evidence of AA77 on Mark Roberts' site here.
2nd half of the video
In the second half of the video (or maybe last third or so), Barbara suddenly begins to discuss dual citizens, and specifically such dual citizens that are Americans and Israeli (according to her).
She lays the blame pretty much on them, or at the very least make them look suspect and only focus on them. This without basically any evidence that can prove they actually did anything to cause the destruction at the Pentagon.
In this part of the video, it's more speculation than anything else. (and seemingly an "attack" on "zionists")
She does not appear to question any of her own theories here, unlike how detailed she was in the first half or first two thirds. This is my second point with this post (being non-questioning).
Final thoughts
Truthers often act this way! They have some areas where they are very very detailed and really know a lot. I give them credit for that knowledge for sure.
but then they can put forth theories that they don't seem to scrutinize themself and accept as fact without supporting evidence. It can be them claiming there were no planes, military planes, switched planes, controlled demolitions etc..
A more consistent focus on detail had been desirable from truthers so they would also question their own theories and scrutinize them. There should be no pride in this! If they're wrong about some things, they should admit that (if needed) and change accordingly, as should us "debunkers"!
We're all people, take care!
Barbara Honegger and her speech
Barbara Honegger has a 3-hour video on YouTube of a speech she held which some of you may have seen (I have actually). Her video is called "Behind the Smoke Curtain" and you can see it here. 3 hours and 5 minutes to be exact.
I admit that I learned some new things, especially in the first half (maybe more than half).
In this video Barbara discusses the crash of AA77 into the Pentagon, or rather, that she thinks it didn't do that and why she things so.
1st half of the video
The first half of the video is devoted to the details of what went down at the Pentagon. In this part, I learned some new details. Actually, I cannot recall them right now, but I learned some new things for sure.
She was pretty meticulous and detailed here. This is one point with this post (the meticulous part).
She did chose to bring forth some witnesses while not bringing up other witnesses. So, she deliberately skewed what people saw at the Pentagon to paint a picture. One might call this deception really.
You can check out many witnesses' statement + evidence of AA77 on Mark Roberts' site here.
2nd half of the video
In the second half of the video (or maybe last third or so), Barbara suddenly begins to discuss dual citizens, and specifically such dual citizens that are Americans and Israeli (according to her).
She lays the blame pretty much on them, or at the very least make them look suspect and only focus on them. This without basically any evidence that can prove they actually did anything to cause the destruction at the Pentagon.
In this part of the video, it's more speculation than anything else. (and seemingly an "attack" on "zionists")
She does not appear to question any of her own theories here, unlike how detailed she was in the first half or first two thirds. This is my second point with this post (being non-questioning).
Final thoughts
Truthers often act this way! They have some areas where they are very very detailed and really know a lot. I give them credit for that knowledge for sure.
but then they can put forth theories that they don't seem to scrutinize themself and accept as fact without supporting evidence. It can be them claiming there were no planes, military planes, switched planes, controlled demolitions etc..
A more consistent focus on detail had been desirable from truthers so they would also question their own theories and scrutinize them. There should be no pride in this! If they're wrong about some things, they should admit that (if needed) and change accordingly, as should us "debunkers"!
We're all people, take care!
söndag 3 maj 2015
Western media vs RT, PressTV and others
3rd of May 2015 was World Press Freedom Day and a world map was posted on Twitter among other places showing what the state of countries' press freedom is around the world. You can see the Twitter-post showing the map here .
On the map, one can take note of the press freedoms in Russia & Iran and compare with western countries in general. It's fairly obvious that western countries and the formerly mentioned countries Russia & Iran differ a lot when it comes to freedom of the press.
The reason I bring this up is because of how many truthers and other conspiracy theorists that complain about western media or often what they simply call "MainStream Media"(MSM). Often they also refer to Russia Today(RT), and in some cases PressTV from Iran(like Veterans Today for example).
Also, it's ironic how Julian Assange has been protected by countries like Russia, again considering the press freedom in Russia vs that of the West.
It's sad how Russia is not fully open and democratic. It has had such a long time to be able to transform and could become such a good country if it did, and maybe even join the EU. Russia is part of Europe and it's unfortunate with the latest tensions between Russia & Europe. Hopefully it can calm down in the near future.
Obviously, the worst situation for the press is in Syria and similar countries. It's disgusting what is going on there and how the press is attacked. To me it just further shows what an unjust conflict that is. It was a war at some point, but since a long time, it just seems like a stand-off and terror campaign against civilians. A Hell with no end in sight.
On the map, one can take note of the press freedoms in Russia & Iran and compare with western countries in general. It's fairly obvious that western countries and the formerly mentioned countries Russia & Iran differ a lot when it comes to freedom of the press.
The reason I bring this up is because of how many truthers and other conspiracy theorists that complain about western media or often what they simply call "MainStream Media"(MSM). Often they also refer to Russia Today(RT), and in some cases PressTV from Iran(like Veterans Today for example).
Also, it's ironic how Julian Assange has been protected by countries like Russia, again considering the press freedom in Russia vs that of the West.
It's sad how Russia is not fully open and democratic. It has had such a long time to be able to transform and could become such a good country if it did, and maybe even join the EU. Russia is part of Europe and it's unfortunate with the latest tensions between Russia & Europe. Hopefully it can calm down in the near future.
Obviously, the worst situation for the press is in Syria and similar countries. It's disgusting what is going on there and how the press is attacked. To me it just further shows what an unjust conflict that is. It was a war at some point, but since a long time, it just seems like a stand-off and terror campaign against civilians. A Hell with no end in sight.
Why the Ground Zero fires lasted so long
An old newspaper article from November 2001 dealt with the efforts to fight the fire at Ground Zero. It brings up the firefighting efforts, the toxic chemicals and more.
2 paragraphs were extra interesting to me as it pertains to something that truthers have frequently brought up: why the fires lasted so long. Truthers often say the reason is thermite.
Fire experts in the article think different as I will quote now below:
It can be useful to be aware of this as opposed to the explanation that truthers often give. Actually I am not ruling out thermite, but I have not seen evidence that I think conclusive proves thermite was found, nor used. Thus, I am not totally convinced it was thermite that Jones & Harrit showed. Again, I am not ruling it out, I am just skeptical that it was actually thermite.
Further, I find the explanation showed here from the article (page 2 of that article is where the quote is in and I linked to page 2) in New York Times much more probable and logical. That fire experts say it also gives it more credibility in my view.
Credit to Ronald Wieck from Hardfire (and in my 9/11-group on FB: "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are an Inside Job!").
2 paragraphs were extra interesting to me as it pertains to something that truthers have frequently brought up: why the fires lasted so long. Truthers often say the reason is thermite.
Fire experts in the article think different as I will quote now below:
It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.
It can be useful to be aware of this as opposed to the explanation that truthers often give. Actually I am not ruling out thermite, but I have not seen evidence that I think conclusive proves thermite was found, nor used. Thus, I am not totally convinced it was thermite that Jones & Harrit showed. Again, I am not ruling it out, I am just skeptical that it was actually thermite.
Further, I find the explanation showed here from the article (page 2 of that article is where the quote is in and I linked to page 2) in New York Times much more probable and logical. That fire experts say it also gives it more credibility in my view.
Credit to Ronald Wieck from Hardfire (and in my 9/11-group on FB: "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are an Inside Job!").
tisdag 21 april 2015
Truthers' narrative questions by Sam
In a group I have about 9/11 on Facebook ("9/11 conspiracy theories are an inside job!") a member, Sam Beeson, made a comment where he wondered what truthers' narrative are regarding 9/11 if I allow myself to interpret his words. He asks why truthers don't have a single story. Further he brings up a number of questions he thinks one almost has to ask truthers just to see where they are coming from. I thought his comment with these questions were so good that I wanted to make a blog post about it. I will share his comment with the questions in full below.
Sam Beeson's comment(by "page" he means my group):
Fair questions?
What are truthers' view of a narrative regarding 9/11?
What kind of truther are you?
Sadly, there is a group that very often gets the blame in different variations that you could add to his point 6, but the point is still made, and he knows which I mean. I have a rule against bringing them up for that reason among others, otherwise I am sure he would have brought them up there too. and "other" covers that any way.
Here you got a view from a debunking perspective. and a little questionnaire to bring to a new truther when you meet him or her.
Sam Beeson's comment(by "page" he means my group):
The truth movement would be much more believable if they would at least agree on a single story. Instead, whenever a new truther comes to this page to argue, you have to ask them 20 questions to find out what kind of truther they are.1. Are you an inside job, LIHOPer, or combination?2. Were the planes that crashed into the WTC real with passengers? Real, without passengers? Military Drones? Holographic images? Combination?3. Was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon real with passengers? Real without passengers? Military drone? Missile? Other.4. Was Flight 93 real with passengers? Real without passengers? Drone? Missile? None of the above? Other?5. Thermite? Nukes? Space laser? Other?6. Who was behind it? Bush? Cheney? The gas companies? The CIA? A Middle Eastern country? Bankers? The Illuminati? Reptilian aliens? The New World Order? Combination? Other?In all seriousness, if truthers could answer these questions BEFORE they start debating, it might make things a little easier for us to argue with them.
Fair questions?
What are truthers' view of a narrative regarding 9/11?
What kind of truther are you?
Sadly, there is a group that very often gets the blame in different variations that you could add to his point 6, but the point is still made, and he knows which I mean. I have a rule against bringing them up for that reason among others, otherwise I am sure he would have brought them up there too. and "other" covers that any way.
Here you got a view from a debunking perspective. and a little questionnaire to bring to a new truther when you meet him or her.
lördag 18 april 2015
Why hasn't Gage made a model of WTC7?
Richard Gage is almost certainly the most well-known architect who voices doubts about what happened on 9/11 and whether the "official story" was correct or not.
Given that he's an architect, I assume he has access to pretty powerful computer programs used in constructing models of houses he's going to build, or at least did when he was active with that. I don't know if he still does that.
Yet, he has never, as far as I know, shown that he has ever made any attempt to make a model of WTC7 and see if he could theorize about what went wrong that way. Why?
Further, he of course is the founder and leader of the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Among the engineers, I know several of them are computer engineers actually. Not saying all of them are. How come none of them have done any simulation, at least one shown publicly so that many of us have seen it? I mean, that I don't know if any of them have made a simulation, but that it never got spread around so it reached me, but I have never heard one of them attempted this.
[edit: since I wrote this, I have heard that AE911T have posted models or simulations on their website, but not seen any]
If one is interested in the truth, as Gage and his organization obviously say they are, why don't they make a good model and simulation and try to make it similar to what we know about WTC7(which is less than we may wish)? I would be interested in seeing that, and I think it would show intellectual honesty to do that.
Looking forward to it...
Given that he's an architect, I assume he has access to pretty powerful computer programs used in constructing models of houses he's going to build, or at least did when he was active with that. I don't know if he still does that.
Yet, he has never, as far as I know, shown that he has ever made any attempt to make a model of WTC7 and see if he could theorize about what went wrong that way. Why?
Further, he of course is the founder and leader of the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Among the engineers, I know several of them are computer engineers actually. Not saying all of them are. How come none of them have done any simulation, at least one shown publicly so that many of us have seen it? I mean, that I don't know if any of them have made a simulation, but that it never got spread around so it reached me, but I have never heard one of them attempted this.
[edit: since I wrote this, I have heard that AE911T have posted models or simulations on their website, but not seen any]
If one is interested in the truth, as Gage and his organization obviously say they are, why don't they make a good model and simulation and try to make it similar to what we know about WTC7(which is less than we may wish)? I would be interested in seeing that, and I think it would show intellectual honesty to do that.
Looking forward to it...
onsdag 11 mars 2015
85 cameras
What do they have to hide?
Many of us have heard claims of there being 85 cameras, which footage was taken by FBI, without releasing this footage. Supposedly they are from when AA77 hits Pentagon. So, why doesn't FBI release these videos? What do they have to hide? These are questions which have been repeated over and over in the past years.
I must admit that I didn't know which cameras these were or what they showed. I thought it was fair to ask them to be shown, as long as it would not mean any risk to the companies or organizations etc. who had the cameras. and of course it's really only "suspicious" if the footage from these cameras actually show something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon and the FBI withheld such information.
Information exists on these 85 videos, and several have been released
To my surprise, I saw a member of a Facebook-group I have about 9/11 post an archived link about these 85 videos (all are not from separate cameras). On the link, all 85 videos are listed with short information about each one. A caveat is that I did not count all of them to see that they were 85, but it seemed to be about 85 to me. Another caveat is that I cannot verify this information with another source, but the link shows documents in writing as pictures as well as the text with the information about each video.
If we assume that the information about the videos are correct, and that it is all 85 being written about on that link, then there really isn't much of a mystery there, and there is nothing of importance that we have not seen before, save for possibly one video or possibly group of images described at the end. That was the only one I have not seen myself at least. I don't know more information about that only video (or images) that shows something that I have not seen before. Would be interesting to know more about it. You can see the archived link about the 85 videos here.
I think it was the same member of my group (became unclear who had posted the first link in my group) who also posted 16 videos in a playlist on his youtube-channel. I do not know if all 85 videos are shown there, but I did see that the first youtube-link in that playlist appeared to be one video with copies just like it's described in the list over the 85 videos that one video was. To clarify, about 5 of the 85 videos are copies of another. I have not confirmed if it's the same one at this point though. It was one I had not seen before, but there was nothing new about the attack on that one.
You can see the playlist here, starting with the first video in the list.
What do the videos contain?
Turns out that several of the videos are not from the Pentagon, but from WTC actually. As I wrote above, some are copies (most are not). Many of them are tourist videos. Some are very short. Most of them show Pentagon after the attack has occured.
All of them were released as part of a FOIA request.
Many of us have heard claims of there being 85 cameras, which footage was taken by FBI, without releasing this footage. Supposedly they are from when AA77 hits Pentagon. So, why doesn't FBI release these videos? What do they have to hide? These are questions which have been repeated over and over in the past years.
I must admit that I didn't know which cameras these were or what they showed. I thought it was fair to ask them to be shown, as long as it would not mean any risk to the companies or organizations etc. who had the cameras. and of course it's really only "suspicious" if the footage from these cameras actually show something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon and the FBI withheld such information.
Information exists on these 85 videos, and several have been released
To my surprise, I saw a member of a Facebook-group I have about 9/11 post an archived link about these 85 videos (all are not from separate cameras). On the link, all 85 videos are listed with short information about each one. A caveat is that I did not count all of them to see that they were 85, but it seemed to be about 85 to me. Another caveat is that I cannot verify this information with another source, but the link shows documents in writing as pictures as well as the text with the information about each video.
If we assume that the information about the videos are correct, and that it is all 85 being written about on that link, then there really isn't much of a mystery there, and there is nothing of importance that we have not seen before, save for possibly one video or possibly group of images described at the end. That was the only one I have not seen myself at least. I don't know more information about that only video (or images) that shows something that I have not seen before. Would be interesting to know more about it. You can see the archived link about the 85 videos here.
I think it was the same member of my group (became unclear who had posted the first link in my group) who also posted 16 videos in a playlist on his youtube-channel. I do not know if all 85 videos are shown there, but I did see that the first youtube-link in that playlist appeared to be one video with copies just like it's described in the list over the 85 videos that one video was. To clarify, about 5 of the 85 videos are copies of another. I have not confirmed if it's the same one at this point though. It was one I had not seen before, but there was nothing new about the attack on that one.
You can see the playlist here, starting with the first video in the list.
What do the videos contain?
Turns out that several of the videos are not from the Pentagon, but from WTC actually. As I wrote above, some are copies (most are not). Many of them are tourist videos. Some are very short. Most of them show Pentagon after the attack has occured.
All of them were released as part of a FOIA request.
söndag 8 mars 2015
Osama admits he did 9/11
but first things first... His supposed denial of responsibility...
Denial
Some have said that Osama denied responsibility in the beginning, but few say that the source of that is Karachi Daily Ummat in Pakistan, a country which has not always seemed to be very pro-USA or pro-West. That was proven when Osama found and killed there if not before. Karachi Daily Ummat is "believed to have close connections to Islamic groups in Afghanistan" according to an archived link from Ananova you can read here. Also, the newspaper says it "submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies". So, how much faith would you put in that? Me personally, I don't put any faith in this at all.
"Confession-video"
Then in December, 2001 already, Pentagon released a video showing Osama bin Laden talk about the 9/11-attacks and what his expectations were, that Atta was in charge etc. as you can see here. I linked the whole 59-minute video there. Over half (the latter part of the video) is of outdoor scenes seemingly unrelated. But in this full video, you can see the first parts when Osama and others enter the room and sit down before they begin talking about 9/11. It has subtitles.
So, this obviously contradicts his supposed "denial", where he also supposedly said it was against Islam to kill innocents, which is true, but he had advocated that it was "OK" to kill civlians (even going so far as calling it a "duty") in statements prior to 9/11, such as an edict from February 22, 1998, as you can read (among others) in this link from PBS's "Frontline". If you search for "civilians" there, it's the 4th hit of 5.
Claiming responsiblity
Finally, in 2004, Al Jazeera showed a video sent to them and published the transcript of said video, which you can see by clicking "Al Jazeera" above.
Fox News reported on this saying he for the first time claimed responsibility for the attacks, and also said why. This video was done prior to the election in 2004, and was likely an attempt to affect the outcome. Fox's link can be seen as sort of a "summary" of the speech and maybe "easier to read", which is why I link that too.
Likewise, CNN reported on this video, which was very special in that Osama admitted guilt concerning 9/11 for the first time. CNN's article can also be seen as sort of a "summary" of his speech for those that don't want to read the whole transcript.
Conclusion
This clearly shows that Osama at least claimed responsibility for 9/11. That, in itself is not proof positive of having commited 9/11, but a strong circumstantial piece of evidence I would say.
Obviously, one has to be aware that the video was to some large extent propaganda and Osama obviously had several purposes with releasing the video. All he said should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still interesting to hear it from himself.
It's also good to have this information to show truthers so they see that Osama indeed admitted to 9/11, while his supposed "denial" is very much in question.
Denial
Some have said that Osama denied responsibility in the beginning, but few say that the source of that is Karachi Daily Ummat in Pakistan, a country which has not always seemed to be very pro-USA or pro-West. That was proven when Osama found and killed there if not before. Karachi Daily Ummat is "believed to have close connections to Islamic groups in Afghanistan" according to an archived link from Ananova you can read here. Also, the newspaper says it "submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies". So, how much faith would you put in that? Me personally, I don't put any faith in this at all.
"Confession-video"
Then in December, 2001 already, Pentagon released a video showing Osama bin Laden talk about the 9/11-attacks and what his expectations were, that Atta was in charge etc. as you can see here. I linked the whole 59-minute video there. Over half (the latter part of the video) is of outdoor scenes seemingly unrelated. But in this full video, you can see the first parts when Osama and others enter the room and sit down before they begin talking about 9/11. It has subtitles.
So, this obviously contradicts his supposed "denial", where he also supposedly said it was against Islam to kill innocents, which is true, but he had advocated that it was "OK" to kill civlians (even going so far as calling it a "duty") in statements prior to 9/11, such as an edict from February 22, 1998, as you can read (among others) in this link from PBS's "Frontline". If you search for "civilians" there, it's the 4th hit of 5.
Claiming responsiblity
Finally, in 2004, Al Jazeera showed a video sent to them and published the transcript of said video, which you can see by clicking "Al Jazeera" above.
Fox News reported on this saying he for the first time claimed responsibility for the attacks, and also said why. This video was done prior to the election in 2004, and was likely an attempt to affect the outcome. Fox's link can be seen as sort of a "summary" of the speech and maybe "easier to read", which is why I link that too.
Likewise, CNN reported on this video, which was very special in that Osama admitted guilt concerning 9/11 for the first time. CNN's article can also be seen as sort of a "summary" of his speech for those that don't want to read the whole transcript.
Conclusion
This clearly shows that Osama at least claimed responsibility for 9/11. That, in itself is not proof positive of having commited 9/11, but a strong circumstantial piece of evidence I would say.
Obviously, one has to be aware that the video was to some large extent propaganda and Osama obviously had several purposes with releasing the video. All he said should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still interesting to hear it from himself.
It's also good to have this information to show truthers so they see that Osama indeed admitted to 9/11, while his supposed "denial" is very much in question.
lördag 7 mars 2015
Israel, mural truck and Odigo-warnings, the truth
Mural truck
So, we've heard many many times about a truck with supposedly painted on it a mural showing a plane diving into New York City and exploding. Supposedly 2 Israelis drove this van. Some think it even exploded, carrying explosives. Hence, Israel is seen as a huge suspect in 9/11 by some(often people with a certain "bent" so to speak).
So, what's up with all that?
Well, according to this document about "Lessons learned in the 9-11 terrorist attacks", MTI report 02-06, it says among other things that the truck was "rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English". It does not say that they were (or were not) Israeli.
They called out the bomb squad and detained the occupants while searching the truck.
However, they concluded something which truthers never mention, namely that "The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck."! You can search the document linked above for "delivery truck" and you can see the paragraph for yourself.
That's it. No explosion, no bombs, uncertain if they were Israelis or not. Nothing there.
Odigo-warnings
2 workers at Odigo, an Israeli messaging service from my understanding, received a warning of the 9/11-attacks 2 hours prior to the attacks. They were based in USA, in New York. Also had an office in Israel.
This warning was seen by some as Israel having pre-knowledge, warning their workers. So, Israel sort of got the blame for this too. or, it was just used to make it seem like several knew in advance, why didn't they stop it etc..
Rarely people say what I wrote above, that they got the warning 2 hours prior to the WTC attack. Most of the time, it's said that they got a warning and that it was an Israeli company.
Nor is it usually said that these workers got this message from people they didn't know. This messaging service let people who don't know you message you.
Nor do people usually bring up that the company cooperated with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI in trying to find out who the senders were as you can read here.
For all we know, it could have been AQ, or AQ-affiliated people who wanted to scare Israelis this way, but that's speculation on my behalf. Regardless, it does not say that Israelis or this company was involved.
Final words
Just wanted to spread this information about these 2 events. The information is out there, but may be sort of "buried" to some extent so I thought I'd try to help bring it to the fore so it could be straightened out a bit. Let's not blame Israelis, Israel, or Jews unfairly.
So, we've heard many many times about a truck with supposedly painted on it a mural showing a plane diving into New York City and exploding. Supposedly 2 Israelis drove this van. Some think it even exploded, carrying explosives. Hence, Israel is seen as a huge suspect in 9/11 by some(often people with a certain "bent" so to speak).
So, what's up with all that?
Well, according to this document about "Lessons learned in the 9-11 terrorist attacks", MTI report 02-06, it says among other things that the truck was "rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English". It does not say that they were (or were not) Israeli.
They called out the bomb squad and detained the occupants while searching the truck.
However, they concluded something which truthers never mention, namely that "The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck."! You can search the document linked above for "delivery truck" and you can see the paragraph for yourself.
That's it. No explosion, no bombs, uncertain if they were Israelis or not. Nothing there.
Odigo-warnings
2 workers at Odigo, an Israeli messaging service from my understanding, received a warning of the 9/11-attacks 2 hours prior to the attacks. They were based in USA, in New York. Also had an office in Israel.
This warning was seen by some as Israel having pre-knowledge, warning their workers. So, Israel sort of got the blame for this too. or, it was just used to make it seem like several knew in advance, why didn't they stop it etc..
Rarely people say what I wrote above, that they got the warning 2 hours prior to the WTC attack. Most of the time, it's said that they got a warning and that it was an Israeli company.
Nor is it usually said that these workers got this message from people they didn't know. This messaging service let people who don't know you message you.
Nor do people usually bring up that the company cooperated with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI in trying to find out who the senders were as you can read here.
For all we know, it could have been AQ, or AQ-affiliated people who wanted to scare Israelis this way, but that's speculation on my behalf. Regardless, it does not say that Israelis or this company was involved.
Final words
Just wanted to spread this information about these 2 events. The information is out there, but may be sort of "buried" to some extent so I thought I'd try to help bring it to the fore so it could be straightened out a bit. Let's not blame Israelis, Israel, or Jews unfairly.
måndag 2 februari 2015
Pentagon eyewitnesses (videos)
The other day I saw several youtube-links to witnesses of the plane crashing into the Pentagon in a group I have on FB so I thought I'd make a blog-post about them.
Especially 3 of them were extra interesting, but they're all good. They are 6 in total and I'll also add a playlist to that.
I'll post the most interesting ones last. All clips are short, 1-3 minutes. They come from TV-stations so may be taken down in the future at some point, but I will take a chance and post links to them any way.
Will post direct links for now. Meant to post embedded videos of these videos, but Blogger cannot find the videos.
2 mins, Joel Sucherman:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Joel Sucherman, Ch. 9)
2 mins, Harry Gold:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Harry Gold)
2 mins, Capten Steve McCoy:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Capt. Steve McCoy)
Now comes the most interesting witnesses.
3 mins, firefighter Alan Wallace who was very close to the impact hiding under a car:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Alan Wallace)
3 mins, pilot Tim Timmerman, identified the plane as a 757 and an American Airlines plane:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Tim Timmerman C*N*N)
1 minute, Dawn Vignola who could also identify the plane as a 757 and American Airlines plane through the male living with her:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Dawn Vignola)
In addition to these 6 videos, there is also a playlist of 5 videos of Pentagon witnesses that you can get to by clicking this. 4 of the videos are 9-10 mins long and the 5th is 4 mins long.
There are more witnesses than these, but they help to get an idea.
Especially 3 of them were extra interesting, but they're all good. They are 6 in total and I'll also add a playlist to that.
I'll post the most interesting ones last. All clips are short, 1-3 minutes. They come from TV-stations so may be taken down in the future at some point, but I will take a chance and post links to them any way.
Will post direct links for now. Meant to post embedded videos of these videos, but Blogger cannot find the videos.
2 mins, Joel Sucherman:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Joel Sucherman, Ch. 9)
2 mins, Harry Gold:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Harry Gold)
2 mins, Capten Steve McCoy:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Capt. Steve McCoy)
Now comes the most interesting witnesses.
3 mins, firefighter Alan Wallace who was very close to the impact hiding under a car:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Alan Wallace)
3 mins, pilot Tim Timmerman, identified the plane as a 757 and an American Airlines plane:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Tim Timmerman C*N*N)
1 minute, Dawn Vignola who could also identify the plane as a 757 and American Airlines plane through the male living with her:
(link: Pentagon Plane Crash Witness Dawn Vignola)
In addition to these 6 videos, there is also a playlist of 5 videos of Pentagon witnesses that you can get to by clicking this. 4 of the videos are 9-10 mins long and the 5th is 4 mins long.
There are more witnesses than these, but they help to get an idea.
torsdag 15 januari 2015
Question everything? OK truthers, here are some questions...
9/11 Truthers often say "question everything". So, in that spirit we can pose some questions to the truthers themselves....
Question 1:
Question 2:
Question 3:
Question 5:
There are many other questions, but I'll stop here. The first 2 questions were not posed by me first, but by 2 members of my FB-group "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are an Inside Job!"
Question 1:
Why bother setting up explosives in the twin towers when hijacking planes and crashing them into US buildings is a good enough reason to go to a war?
Question 2:
Why did no media organization report trucks driving in with plane wreckage at the Pentagon after the plane had crashed into it (assuming it was no plane and they wanted to make it appear as if it were)?
Question 3:
Why bother crashing planes into buildings first, but then send a missile into the Pentagon? A huge building full with people one might expect would be able to tell the difference between a missile and a plane.Question 4:
Why had no conspirator, other than AQ, come out and said they did this?
Question 5:
Why did so many countries and also NSA warn about a coming, big terror attack against USA by AQ prior to 9/11? For example, John Kerry was not surprised on 9/11 as he had seen the warnings. Richard Clarke had seen them too.Question 6:
Why is Alex Jones still on the air and have so much money? If there was a huge international organization intent on world domination that was so evil that it carried out 9/11, it sure would not allow someone like Alex Jones running around bullhorning them, agitating against them one would think.
There are many other questions, but I'll stop here. The first 2 questions were not posed by me first, but by 2 members of my FB-group "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are an Inside Job!"
måndag 12 januari 2015
Osama positively ID'd in confession video
In late 2001 a video of Osama bin Laden came out where he talked about 9/11 together with others. Osama talked about his surprise etc. in that video. and he seemed to openly show that he and AQ planned it.
Truthers have often said this video is "faked". Osama appears more "chubby" and other "problems" in the minds of truthers.
However, BBC had a show called "Conspiracy files" several years ago. These "conspiracy files" were 1 hour long each and on a specific topic, not only about 9/11. One was about Oklahoma, one about David Kelly etc.. but there was one about Osama and whether he was alive or not (as it had often been claimed that he was dead).
In that program, they included an expert who took a still picture of Osama from a known video of him from 1998 and then they faded from a still picture from the "confession" video to that known picture of him in front of our eyes, and it's a perfect match! See for yourselves:
These clips of this BBC-show are often removed as it's copyright-protected, so maybe this 3-minute clip with the identification of Osama will be removed also, but I wrote the name of the show so you can look it up for yourselves above.
[here was before a video, which apparently was removed]
It's as clear as it can be.
Pentagon-employee about the cameras
I have a group on Facebook and a member there had worked at the Pentagon in 2001.
He writes...
That got me curious so I asked him about the cameras at the Pentagon that often comes up from truthers....
This is what he answered...
I think this might help straighten out this question mark about the Pentagon cameras, or partially does that at least...
I did not know this myself and I thought I'd share it with you.
The truth shall set you free they say...
He writes...
my experience comes from being a naval flight officer, in and around aviation for most of my 26 year US Navy active and reserve service, including duty at the Pentagon (transferring in Jan of 2001) with the Navy Command Center, a unit that lost over 30 civilians, officers and enlisted on 9/11.
That got me curious so I asked him about the cameras at the Pentagon that often comes up from truthers....
This is what he answered...
my take on the Pentagon surveillance cameras is as follows:
First, the reconstruction of that wedge was not 100% complete and as far as I know the entrance to that wedge was not open. I'm not even certain those roof top cameras were operational at that point since it was still a construction access area and the helipad was not being used at that time.
Second, in my opinion any cameras on that wedge would have been looking at the immediate areas adjacent to the building, not up the hill toward the Navy Annex.
I think this might help straighten out this question mark about the Pentagon cameras, or partially does that at least...
I did not know this myself and I thought I'd share it with you.
The truth shall set you free they say...
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)