The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Jonathan Revusky Archive
Battling the Matrix and Freeing Oneself from the Roger Rabbit Mental World
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_193613900

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In 1999, a big hit movie was The Matrix. I went and saw it but I don’t recall it making much of an impression on me. At the time, my understanding of the world was pretty conventional. I believed the things I was told — for example, that a lone nut by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald had shot President Kennedy, and another lone gunman named James Earl Ray later shot Martin Luther King. Of course 9/11 hadn’t happened yet, but, when it did, a couple of years later, I assumed that the official story was broadly true. In retrospect, I am not sure whether, at the time, I even knew the term “false flag terrorism”. Probably not. In general, I believed that the way to stay informed about world events was to watch CNN and the BBC or read the New York Times. I also held rather typical mainstream liberal/progressive views that a North American university graduate would hold. In short, I was a typical overeducated idiot.

Not very long ago, since it was linked on a web page, I watched the famous red pill scene again and it was a shock. I thought: “But my God, that’s… that’s… absolutely uncanny!”

So much had happened in the intervening decade and a half, and I had undergone such an intellectual evolution that, of course, my reaction to the scene was bound to be very different. It was really thought provoking.

On further consideration, though, I realized that, as compelling as the red pill scene is, it still basically begs the question. In the real world, there is no such red pill, either at the local pharmacy or from the neighborhood drug pusher. So, how would a real-world Morpheus get Neo to perceive the Matrix that surrounds them?

You see, the red pill is basically a sort of deus ex machina. The character takes the pill and voilà! If you think about it, it’s understandable that they introduce such a plot device. That way, the film avoids having to explain how the characters came to perceive the Matrix. Actually I can’t even imagine offhand how the movie would go about explaining that, but if it did, it would end up being a very different sort of film, much more complex and psychological. Too intellectual. It would bore most people. This way, the character wakes up without taking too much time away that could be better used in slick martial arts scenes, which are, after all, what most moviegoers want to see.

Another interesting aspect of this is that, in the moral universe of the Matrix, the character must choose the red pill of his own free will. Morpheus gives Neo the whole spiel and Neo has to decide. Okay, obviously we know he’ll choose the red pill because if he chose the blue one, the movie would be over before it had hardly started. But he is offered the choice. If Neo had chosen the blue pill, the other characters weren’t going to jump him and pin him down and force him to ingest the red pill. Though, actually, come to think of it, for all we know, that was the backup plan. But no, I’m pretty sure that the ethos of the Matrix is that a person must consciously choose the red pill. In other words, people have the right to delude themselves.

Another movie that came out a decade before that, the John Carpenter film “They Live”, has a similar theme, where the characters perceive a reality that others don’t. Like the Matrix, it has a deus ex machina plot device that “explains” how the characters come to perceive the nature of the world they are in. Instead of the red pill, it’s these special sunglasses.

But there is a very basic difference in a somewhat analogous scene. When the main character in “They Live” wants his best buddy to see reality, i.e. put on the sunglasses, the friend adamantly refuses. However, the protagonist won’t take no for an answer and a really violent broken down fight ensues. Finally the main character forces his friend, kicking and screaming (and punching and head-butting), to put on the sunglasses and see reality.

This crazy fight scene is also something that I perceive very differently watching it now than when I first saw it many years back. On the superficial level, the scene makes no sense. You just think: this is silly, nobody would go to such lengths to avoid trying on a pair of sunglasses. He would just humor his friend and try them on before it got to anything like that! On a deeper level, though, once one understands what the sunglasses represent, one cannot help but feel that, as over-the-top as the scene is, it is, on some level, far more realistic than the Matrix red pill scene. The adamant refusal of the character in “They Live” to put on the sunglasses is actually far more like the way people in the real world behave than when Neo eagerly grabs the red pill in the Matrix. It would be even more realistic if, instead of shouting “you crazy Mother” while fighting to avoid putting on the sunglasses, the character shouted instead: “You crazy conspiracy theorist!” (In fact, the “conspiracy theorist” label is the most basic weapon of these reality avoiders and this essay will address this question later.)

BDQ, high IQ idiocy, and the Ludek Pachman Moment (LPM)

Getting back to the real world, we still have the observable fact that some people perceive the propaganda matrix and others are oblivious to it, and we don’t have any red pills or sunglasses to explain this. Just as some people get calculus and others don’t, some people see through the bullshit and others don’t. That’s pretty clear…

Now, when it comes to calculus or other academic subjects, we have IQ; we say the higher IQ people do better at school, or at least it comes easier to them. However, the ability to see through the propaganda, bullshit generally speaking, does not seem to have much (if anything) to do with IQ. There are people with a very high IQ who are just completely helpless when it comes to seeing through the propaganda. The technical term for such a person is HIQI, or “high IQ idiot”. The term is not really as contradictory as it seems, since, properly understood, there is another kind of intelligence in play than IQ, that allows people to see through the bullshit. The technical term we shall use for this is BDQ, which stands for Bullshit Detection Quotient. The term “high IQ idiot” does not originate in this essay. A quick google search reveals prior usage here and there, but this essay may be the first to provide a formal definition of the concept:

A “high IQ idiot” is somebody with a combination of high IQ and very low BDQ.

There is an event that I recall from a book that I read a long time ago that, I think, illustrates the concept quite nicely. It’s a rather obscure book, probably out of print now, entitled “Checkmate in Prague”. The author was a chess grandmaster named Ludek Pachman. I read the book back in my teens when I was a fanatical chess player. It’s partly a memoir of the author’s chess career but is mostly a political memoir of his time in Czechoslovakia under communist rule and it culminates in his defection to the West some time in the early 1970’s.

The event I have in mind goes like this: Ludek’s housekeeper is going off to the market to buy some food. As she is going out, Ludek tells her that he would prefer that she not buy pork. You see, Ludek had read some sort of popular science article that warned of how unhealthy it was to eat pork. He was concerned that he was eating too much pork and would prefer for her to buy beef or chicken instead.

His housekeeper, surely not a very educated woman, responded: “Oh, that is all nonsense, Mr. Pachman. They are telling us that pork is unhealthy because, at the moment, there is a severe shortage of pork and they don’t want people to notice.”

Ludek took this as an example of the kinds of misguided notions that uneducated people engage in. (I don’t believe he used the term “conspiracy theory”.) For Ludek, it was completely unthinkable that scientists would write an article like that saying that pork was unhealthy if there was not some real evidence that it was.

Well, some months after this, Ludek was reading some popular science article and the article was extolling the health benefits of pork. Now, apparently, pork was by far the healthiest meat, much better for you than beef or chicken. It struck Ludek as rather odd that the scientific consensus on this could change so quickly. Ludek looked into the question and discovered that, now there was a huge oversupply of pork. It seems that the authorities had overreacted to the previous shortage and now there was more pork than anybody knew what to do with. Thus, the authorities were desperately trying to increase the demand for pork by putting out articles telling everybody how healthy it was.

Many readers might chuckle at the above story, not think that it is very consequential. After all, when you think of the various abuses committed in communist regimes, a few porkies about pork surely do not rank very high. Nonetheless, this incident really did shock poor Ludek, and was, as I recall, one of the key events that caused him to turn against the communist regime and, ultimately, to defect to the West. He just really disliked living in such a corrupt, mendacious society, in which everything was a lie. (Whether Ludek was right to assume that the West was much better is another fascinating question, but is beyond the scope of this essay.)

Now, what I would point out about this story is that Ludek almost certainly had a much higher IQ than his housekeeper. And he was also far more educated. However, his housekeeper immediately knew that these articles appearing in the press — denigrating (and later extolling) the eating of pork — were bullshit, while Ludek was taken in by them. In short, Ludek’s housekeeper had a much higher BDQ than Ludek did.

Since I feel that the foregoing anecdote is such a good basic example of a certain phenomenon, I shall introduce some new terminology. This kind of realisation that Ludek has, when he sees how naive he has been and that his uneducated housekeeper, in a very basic way, is actually smarter than he is — let us call this a Ludek Pachman moment, or LPM for short.

I believe that, for people who belong to what we could broadly call the Deep Politics Community or the Truth Community, the LPM is a very basic recurring theme. For example, Ron Unz has published a series of articles under the rubric of “American Pravda” in which he documents just how unreliable the American (and really, Western) media is. The facts that Ron documents are indeed compelling, but the articles can also be looked at another way: you see, besides just covering various factual material, he is recounting his own personal intellectual journey, his own personal “Ludek Pachman moment”, or perhaps really a series of LPM‘s.

About a year ago, Jeff Brown wrote an article about what he calls the Great Western Firewall. He outlines at great length a series of facts, but properly understood, I would say that Jeff is also describing his own LPM. While Jeff Brown outlines a completely different series of facts in GWF than Ron Unz in AP, one could say that, in deep structure, if you will, they are broadly the same. In each case, the author is describing his own LPM, or a series of LPM‘s that constitute an overall awakening.

The reason that I found the aforementioned articles by Ron Unz and Jeff Brown so compelling is that I myself went on a similar journey and it is still fairly recent. I surmise that the people who react negatively to those articles (and I recall that Jeff Brown’s GWF article got a lot of negative comments) are people who have not (yet) had their own LPM. I guess the most basic diagnostic self-test in this regard is that if you believe that the way you get educated about the world is to watch CNN and BBC and read the New York Times, then you have not yet had your own LPM. And certainly, if you still think that calling somebody a “conspiracy theorist” is some sort of meaningful insult, you are in dire need of your own Ludek Pachman Moment.

BDQ and Roger Rabbit Artefacts (RRA’s)

When I started thinking seriously about the whole BDQ issue, one aspect of it occurred to me fairly quickly. People have a strong baseline of bullshit detection capability when dealing with direct visual stimuli. By that, I mean pictures of things that are obviously absurd. For example, however low your BDQ happens to be, if somebody shows you a picture of a car with square wheels, you immediately identify this as impossible. So it stands to reason that if you want to bullshit somebody, it is easier to do so verbally than visually. I guess the issue is that a visual stimulus goes directly to some part of the cortex that, on a non-conscious, non-verbal level of reasoning, just immediately identifies the input as absurd and impossible.

Along these lines, I thought about another movie I saw a long time ago. It came out in 1987, a year before “They Live”. I am thinking of “Who framed Roger Rabbit?”. That was, I think, the first movie in which human actors interacted seamlessly with cartoon characters. (There were other attempts before, I’m sure, but I think that Roger Rabbit took this to a very polished level.) I think that Roger Rabbit, i.e. cartoons being superimposed on reality, can be a nice metaphor for thinking about these kinds of issues. In fact, I believe that many an LPM that people have undergone is when it dawns on them that some story that is presented by the media is an RRN, a Roger Rabbit narrative.

Though it was quite a technical achievement at the time, one thing is clear about this: everybody can identify which elements on the screen are cartoons and which ones are real. A cartoon building or a cartoon car just doesn’t look like a real building or a real car. And most certainly cartoon characters cannot be confused with a real human actor. So, again, when there is a direct visual stimulus like this, we all possess the wetware to identify effortlessly and immediately what is real and what is a cartoon, at least in a Roger Rabbit sort of movie in which cartoons and real people share the screen. So if we were watching one of those Bin Laden videos and some actual cartoon Arabs were to come out in the video, characters out of a Disney animated Aladdin or Sinbad, we would all presumably realize that the video is fake.

While nobody has any problem identifying a cartoon image, people frequently do have problems with a cartoon narrative. In May of 2011, in the first version of what happened in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a White House spokesman claims that Osama Bin Laden, when cornered, tried to use one of his wives as a “human shield”. They did later change the story, but this first version is a clear case of a cartoon element being overlaid onto something that is supposed to be a real event. My terminology for this is RRA, which stands for Roger Rabbit artifact.

Admittedly, since no photographic or video evidence was ever produced of this Abbottabad raid, it is not an RRA in the more literal sense of involving video fakery. (Video fakery is frequent in other hoax events, but not this one.) I still classify this as an RRA, since an event is alleged to occur that clearly emerges from a cartoon or Hollywoodian universe. You see, the “human shield” story requires Osama Bin Laden, who is ostensibly a real person in the real world, to exist mentally in a sort of cartoon universe. Upon realizing that agents of the U.S. government have arrived to liquidate him, he reasons that these are chivalrous individuals who would not shoot a woman. Therefore, he can prevent himself from being shot by getting behind a woman. People, let’s think about this: would anybody in the real world ever reason this way? Surely, anybody — and I mean outside of a Hollywood movie or comic book — on realizing that professional assassins are coming to kill him, would try to put as much distance between himself and his family members as possible. Putting them between him and the shooters would only get them needlessly killed as well!

Properly understood, it does not at all matter that the authorities later denied the human shield story. It really doesn’t, because, you see, once you identify an RRA in the narrative, even if it is later amended, you know the whole thing must be fake. This is because there is really no way that an RRA can just slip into a real event. No, there must be actual fiction writers involved! And that means that the event really must be a hoax. Why would you hire Hollywood scriptwriters, say, to write a script for something that really happened? Also, professional writers don’t write that fast. They have to have had the script written before the event (allegedly) happened!

When the story contains what is clearly an RRA, and then no actual evidence is ever provided that any of this happened, we can say that the event must be some sort of hoax. (To be clear, I don’t mean to say that nothing happened. Some operation of some sort occurred and possibly somebody was killed. Something happened but we have no way of knowing what it was! We do know, however, that whatever they say happened is not what happened!) I hereby propose a basic principle of detecting official bullshit:

If there is a single RRA in an official account, then the whole thing is an RRN.

BDQ and the ISIS Beheading Videos

It was less than a year ago that I watched one of those ISIS beheading videos for the first time. I had frequently run into claims that they were fake, but had always refrained from watching any of them. I doubt I’m the only person in this situation. After all, even if you think there is only a small chance that you will see somebody really getting beheaded, do you want to take that chance? Still the problem remains: how do you resolve the issue other than looking and seeing for yourself?

When I finally steeled myself and watched some of these videos, it was shocking. The videos were not just fake, they were comically fake! Chock full of Roger Rabbit artifacts. I have to admit that it was only afterwards that I realised something about this that should have been obvious. You see, really, the ISIS beheading videos had to be fake. In fact, some variant of this could, I think be a basic question on a BDQ test:

Does a political movement ever make propaganda films that are designed to portray themselves as villains out of a comic book?

Really, think about it. You know, even without checking, I am absolutely certain that you can go and look back at any of the propaganda films from Germany in the Nazi period or from Soviet Russia and they never portray themselves as evil. No! Of course not! They portray their enemies as comic book villains, not themselves! That these videos therefore must be fake really ought to be obvious to anybody with, let’s say, an average BDQ (which, we could say by analogy, with IQ, is 100). However, it is clear enough that, in the society in which we live, people who immediately see through the absurdity of this have much higher than the average BDQ, surely 120 or far higher, I would say. And, actually, though I am a bit ashamed to admit it, this did not immediately occur to me. I don’t know what my BDQ is currently since I have never taken a BDQ test (due to the little technical obstacle that they don’t exist). I am, however, quite certain that my BDQ is vastly higher than it was ten years ago!

Another odd aspect of these fake ISIS beheading videos is just how much of an open secret it is that they are fake. Most of the western media pretends they are real, but occasionally, somebody doesn’t get the memo, it seems. So, for example, you have this deconstruction of one of the fake videos in the British newspaper, the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963039/Does-Isis-really-army-seven-foot-executioners-Experts-say-footage-beheading-Christians-Libya-FAKE.html

You can see the actual fake video that the article refers to here along with some analysis:

http://libyanwarthetruth.com/isis-beheading-video-libya-hoax

This article quotes an informed source that says that these fake beheading videos are probably made by some production company in California, filmed possibly in Mexico (I guess because production costs are cheaper down there) or alternatively the work was outsourced to Europe, in which case it was probably done by a Spanish company. I have no way of verifying any of the above, but it rings true. In any case, it hardly matters whether the video was filmed in Mexico, Spain, or in Timbuktu. It’s fake.

I think this particular video stars the infamous Jihadi Joseph. Jihadi Joseph, judging by his English diction, seems to have grown up in the United States. There are also Jihadi John videos. Jihadi John has an English accent. Basically, these black-clad knife waving native English speaking head slicers are stock comic book characters being portrayed by actors, thus an RRA, but the videos contain a host of other RRA’s, as you can see if you read the above-linked Daily Mail article.

All that said, properly understood, the entire video is one big Roger Rabbit artifact, a cartoon being superimposed on reality. Now it does seem that there really are these thug/mercenary/gangster types controlling large parts of Syria and Iraq. It is also possible that they do execute people, maybe even a lot of people. However, these fake videos are really a kind of cartoon element being superimposed on what is really happening in the Middle East. The people behind all of this are crafting a kind of Roger Rabbit movie.

The videos are so poor and so obviously fake that it must be that the people behind this have calculated (correctly) that very few people will actually watch the videos anyway. Besides this, and perhaps more importantly, very few western journalists will ever say openly that the videos are fake. This isn’t even a hypothesis. The Jewish-American feminist author Naomi Wolf, openly said that the beheading videos were fake and came under a very concerted character assassination attack. Here is just one example:

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/10/celebrated-feminist-author-turned-completely-insane-person-thinks-isis-beheading-videos-fake/

Ay, she has gone stark raving mad, the poor dear, claims the videos are fake. It’s so sad but hey, that’s what happens when you spend too much time conversing wit’ yer hoo hah…

But seriously, I feel that, whatever one thinks of Naomi Wolf and the third wave of feminism, whatever that is, and despite my own inability to resist making a joke at her expense, I strongly feel she should be applauded for having the ovaries to tell the truth. She didn’t have to stick her neck out and she had to know what she was in for. People come under concerted attack for telling the truth about these things. Yet, for all of that, it is so well known in certain circles that these videos are fake that they are fodder for comedy. Consider this video put out by some Israeli comedians:

The people who made this video simply take for granted that their public know that all these beheading videos are fake. I infer that anyway, because if their audience actually believed that the beheading videos were real, the skit would be outrageously tasteless. I’m not familiar with these comedians, but it really seems to me that they just assume that their entire audience is hip to the fact that all these beheading videos are fake. It may be that the targeted audience for this group’s comedy videos is a demographic with a far above-average BDQ.

Wings on Pigs: the 9/11 Narrative

Now, I have to make some comments about 9/11 because it is, by far, the biggest of the false flag psy ops. I’m loath to go on that much about it because there is so much material by now. Here we are 14 years after the event, and, like the JFK assassination, it has spawned a vast literature. Of course, like any body of work, it’s a mixed bag, but certainly, just as in the case of the JFK research community, there are some extremely capable people who have worked on this. I myself have not done any independent research. The only novelty I can bring to the table is presentational in nature. It’s the same basic ingredients but maybe I can present them in a somewhat fresh way.

Here is a basic point to consider: the official 9/11 story is a WOP narrative. No, I don’t mean like the Godfather or Goodfellas. The WOP acronym stands for “Wings on Pigs”. Let me explain. There is a standard idiom in the English language:

If pigs had wings, they could fly.

Like any idiom or cliché, we rarely think about it, I suppose. But, one day (I guess because I’m a weirdo) I was actually thinking about this. It struck me that the idiom was obviously false. I mean, think about it. If you could somehow transplant the wings of an eagle, say, onto a pig, you think the pig could fly? Not that I have any background in any of the relevant scientific fields, but it really seems that a pig’s body is too heavy and dense and not the least bit aerodynamic. Surely the eagle’s wings will only work for the eagle, as the eagle’s body has the appropriate characteristics. So, on consideration, it occurred to me that the correct idiom really should be:

Even if a pig had wings, it still couldn’t fly.

So, hopefully you understand what I mean by a WOP, Wings on Pigs narrative. If you tell me a flying pig story, I can take two basic approaches. I can just say: sorry, pigs don’t have wings. Or if I want to be more clever about it, I could pretend to believe that, okay, maybe a pig could have wings, and then argue that, even so, given the properties of a pig’s body, it still can’t fly! In other words, a WOP narrative is when the story is so many degrees away from being possible that you could concede (just for the sake of argument, really, like pretending that pigs have wings) any specific point and it doesn’t matter: the story is still crazy!

Much of the 9/11 truth debate centres around whether the fires that were burning in the buildings could have melted or weakened the supporting steel frame of the buildings sufficiently to cause a structural failure. Well, the answer, on investigation, is pretty clearly no. The fires weren’t anywhere near big enough or hot enough. Much more intense fires have raged far longer in steel-framed high-rises and not once has such a building ever collapsed as a result. Never. It really is that simple. (Propagandists try to complicate the matter by deliberately confusing the temperatures that can be reached in a blast furnace, but in the conditions of these fires burning this way in the open, they’re nowhere near hot enough.) This seems clear enough, but to make matters worse, even if we assumed that the temperatures of the fires were hot enough to significantly weaken steel columns (i.e. if we assume that pigs have wings) the result would never be this kind of straight-down symmetrical collapse. (i.e. the pig would still not fly!)

The clearest case to consider is building 7, which was not even hit by a plane, and its collapse is on film from several different angles:

What is fascinating about this is that the implosion of WTC building 7 is more impressively clean and vertical and symmetrical than even most controlled demolitions you can look at on youtube! There is an interview one can still watch on youtube where the late Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolition specialist, when shown the building 7 footage for the first time (without initially being told that it happened on 9/11) expresses obvious admiration at how well executed a demolition job it is.

He says: “Those guys really know what they’re doing.” At this point, anybody with a reasonably high BDQ would realize that the official story — that this building collapsed as a result of unplanned, uncontrolled fires — cannot possibly be true. If all of this is not enough, a further point to ponder is that demolition specialists sometimes mess up, on occasion spectacularly, and the demolition fails. Sometimes, the building just partially collapses, or tips over, or something like that. It is utterly preposterous that a perfect symmetrical collapse as we see in the video could occur just by fires spreading in an undirected, uncontrolled manner. It took me a decade to realise this, but a person with a higher BDQ could realise instantly that something this perfectly symmetrical has to be engineered.

The above is how I came to realize that the official 9/11 story could not be true — that, in fact, it is preposterous. What is funny about this is that, once the spell was broken, I started realizing all the other absurd aspects of the story. Consider the hijacking part. Here is a basic BDQ test question:

Would a terrorist mastermind ever send his agents to the target country for a suicide operation over a year before the operation?

It really seems like the answer must be no. Just think about the following considerations:

  1. The willingness to kill oneself is not a normal state of mind for a person to be in. If somebody is willing to die for the cause now, in February of 2016, is it feasible to plan an operation that depends on that person still being willing to kill himself in August of 2017, say? This seems especially problematic if the person is dropped into a completely novel environment, which the U.S. would be for them. Could anybody really count on people going off to live in another country and then, a year and a half later, being in the exact same state of mind where they are willing to kill themselves? Is there any suicide operation in history that has ever worked like this?
  2. Moreover, why would you ever send the operatives to the target country over a year before the operation anyway? They were there in Venice, Florida to learn how to fly the plane, eh? You think the U.S. is the only country in the world where you can learn to fly an airplane? Wouldn’t the presence of your operatives in the target country for over a year prior to the operation drastically increase the chance of them being identified and having the plot foiled by organs of the State in that country?
  3. It’s a lesser issue, but getting a visa to live in a country for over a year is far more difficult than getting a short-term tourist visa. Of course, one could visit a country on the short-term tourist visa and overstay the time limit, but that also introduces an extra risk factor, getting detained or deported for violating the terms of the visa.

If you think about these questions, it becomes obvious fairly quickly that no real operation would ever work the way the 9/11 operation was alleged to work. Any real terrorist organization would have its agents go to the target country at the last possible moment before the operation. They would fly in on a tourist visa, saying they were middle class Arabs there to see Niagara Falls or Disneyworld, and then carry out the operation shortly after arrival.

Again, as in the previous example of the ISIS beheading videos, it seems like a person of average BDQ ought to realize that the whole hijacking story is preposterous. However, that is obviously not the case, not in western countries anyway. If the average BDQ in the West is assumed to be a baseline 100, then it seems just offhand that, to realize the above requires a BDQ of at least 130. Or possibly higher. It should be immediately obvious, yet I have to pinch myself to realize that it took me well over a decade to get there myself.

Fool Me Once, Shame on You…. Fool me twice…

While the BDQ of the general population in the western countries is horrendously low, I have little doubt that the worst of the lot is the United States. Perhaps the most important factor in this is the general ignorance of history. It is not for nothing that the late, great Gore Vidal referred to the U.S.A. as “the United States of Amnesia”. One aspect of Vidal’s insight is that the American people, as a group, have next to no real collective memory, so they can just keep falling for the same propaganda over and over again.

Doubtless, low BDQ and ignorance of history tend to go hand in hand. After all, much of what we call “intelligence” amounts to pattern recognition and the form of intelligence that we call here BDQ, the ability to detect bullshit, is definitely no exception. This is because the bullshit is surprisingly repetitive in nature. For example, in early August of 1914, the German army invaded Belgium. The British government had already decided to get into the war but needed a pretisxt, so they were shocked, outraged, that the Germans had violated Belgian neutrality. They further claimed that the Germans were committing horrid atrocities in Belgium, “bayoneting Belgian babies” among other things.

A full 76 years later, in 1990, to get the American public behind a war against Iraq, they invented the story of the Iraqis taking babies out of the incubators in Kuwait. Now, you would think that anybody who knew history, when they see basically the same war propaganda recycled, they might think, like Roger Daltrey: “won’t get fooled again”.

So, let’s say that, tomorrow, it is claimed that ISIS (or whatever Bogeyman du jour) has massacred a bunch of babies, this is intolerable, and we must go off to war. It stands to reason that people who know the historical precedents are far less likely to buy the story. Once you know that they have used these stories about babies to sell more than one war, you will be very loath to accept any similar warmongering story without strong proof. You can also be sure that when you do ask for proof of the story, none will be provided; you will be denounced as a “conspiracy theorist”.

Just as the warmongering propaganda gets recycled over and over, the modus operandi of Deep State operations does not change that much either. If you look at the Kennedy assassination of over fifty years ago, you have a patsy, a designated fall guy who is to be framed for the crime, Lee Harvey Oswald. In the assassination of the black civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, four and a half years later, the patsy was a man named James Earl Ray — like Oswald, another white American. Today, the same pattern is repeated over and over: specialists carry out the operation and one or more patsies are framed for it. Typically, the patsies are killed, giving the authorities quite a bit of liberty to say anything they want afterwards. Nowadays, the patsies are almost invariably Muslims, because that is the Roger Rabbit narrative being pushed.

When a HIQI professes amazement that you could even consider the possibility that deep State agents would commit a crime and then attempt to frame somebody else for it, what he is doing of course, is exposing his own ignorance of history — in a rather cringeworthy fashion.

High IQ Idiots and the Conspiracy Theory Shibboleth

All of this brings us to one key thing about High IQ idiots. Granted, it is subjective in nature, I think it will ring true to most readers:

A HIQI is far far more annoying and obnoxious than a garden variety low IQ idiot.

You see, the conventional idiot, the low IQ idiot, does not typically use his own low IQ as proof of how clever he is. Okay, he may well say something like: “Sure, I was never very good at school but I’m nobody’s fool.” And, fair enough. In my view, that’s actually a reasonable thing to say. But he will just about never say something like: “I don’t understand calculus (or whatever) and that shows how clever I am.”

The high IQ idiot will take his own idiocy, specifically his own inability to see through these Roger Rabbit narratives, as well as his own woeful ignorance of history, as proof that he is more clever than you are! I can only speak for myself, but I find that pretty damned annoying! In fact, it’s so annoying that one can lose one’s cool, when, really, what is needed is to think very coldly and analytically about how to approach this problem.

One of the first issues to discuss in this regard is this whole “conspiracy theory” construct and the associated insult, where they call you a “conspiracy theorist”. Quite typically, this is the only rhetorical weapon they have, and as such, they always pull it out and keep trying to bang away at you with it. In fact, if you can wrest this single weapon from them, they are essentially disarmed. They don’t have anything else!

The most important thing to understand about the CT concept is that it is utterly meaningless. This becomes quite obvious when you ask people for proof of whatever official, Roger Rabbit narrative they are espousing. For example, if you simply ask people to provide proof of the government story of 9/11, without suggesting any alternative theory yourself, you will pretty much invariably be called a “conspiracy theorist” even though you have yourself offered no theory! On reflection, the whole thing is really very odd, because the government story would seem to be a “conspiracy theory”, as it is a theory and it does involve conspirators conspiring. So they propose a conspiracy theory, you request proof of that theory, and they respond to your request by saying that you are a conspiracy theorist!

It is as if, when you say that you don’t believe the stories in the Bible, people were to respond by accusing you of being a religious fanatic!

Eventually, one comes to the understanding that a CT is just any avenue of investigation that the authorities want to discourage you from exploring! And this is the case even if no conspiracy was posited. Or even any theory at all! At various times, I have heard people refer to the proposal that the Federal Reserve should be independently audited as a “conspiracy theory”. I recall Donald Rumsfeld saying that the belief that the Iraq war had something to do with oil (as opposed to the U.S. government’s official explanation, the non-existent WMD’s) was a “conspiracy theory”!

Calling something a CT is simply an illegitimate way of trying to shut down a conversation and it may well be that the most important cultural/intellectual divide in our current day world is between those who realize that and those who don’t. Finally, the only way to deal with this “you’re a conspiracy theorist nya nya” sort of thing must be something analogous to Godwin’s law. I guess I could immodestly propose that this be called “Revusky’s law”:

Anybody who starts with this vacuous nonsense about “conspiracy theories” and/or calls you a “conspiracy theorist” has thereby conceded the debate.

When the HIQI professes his belief in whatever Roger Rabbit narrative, it is up to him to tell you what the proof is for the story. Simply calling you a name, in particular a name that is meaningless anyway, does not cut it.

Overall Tactics: Retaining the Initiative

The above brings us to something that is, properly understood, a more general point that goes beyond the issue directly at hand here. This may seem like a tangent but bear with me.

Across a wide variety of different competitive activities — sports, games and so forth — any proper analysis of strategy and tactics will refer to a very basic concept: the initiative. At any given moment, the person who holds the initiative is the one who is forcing his opponent to react to him, rather than the other way round. Consider, for example, two games that seem, on the face of it, to have absolutely nothing in common: chess and tennis. Nonetheless, there is actually a thread of commonality. In both games, holding the initiative is a huge advantage, at least at a professional level of play. In chess, the white pieces move first, and, in high level play between comparable players, the vast majority of games with a decisive result are won by the player playing white. For broadly similar reasons, in tennis, in a match between players of comparable level, the player who serves in a given game is vastly favored to win that game, because he begins each point holding the initiative.

Looking at this in a very general way, we could say that it is somehow in the nature of things that passivity is rarely a winning strategy in this life. Thus, across a wide variety of games or competitive activities, the expert practitioner will not readily cede the initiative. No, it is the weak, inexperienced player who readily adopts a passive, reactive stance.

This all has a direct application to the topic at hand, which is how to deal with the HIQI’s and their Roger Rabbit narratives. Much to my amazement and exasperation, what I continually observe in debates is that people who really ought to know better make the basic tactical mistake of ceding the initiative to their opponent. Time and again, they allow themselves to be maneuvered into a passive, reactive stance.

This is really quite a striking phenomenon when you examine it. Earlier I introduced the concept of the WOP (Wings On Pigs) narrative. A WOP narrative is so many degrees away from being possible that a full refutation tends to be complete overkill. The flying pig story is impossible because the pig does not have wings and, moreover, even if the pig did have wings, it still would not fly.

So, if you are facing a WOP narrative, how can you fail to win the debate? Well, the first thing to understand is that, if somebody has to use legitimate arguments, based on facts and logic, to defend an absurd story, his position is completely untenable. Or, to use the more lively vernacular, he is up (bull)shit creek without a paddle. And this has a simple logical implication. A position which is indefensible (by definition, really) will not be defended. Your opponent understands (consciously or not) that he cannot defend his stated belief. The only thing he can do is go on the attack. What they will typically do is demand that you tell some alternative story to their flying pigs narrative and then, if you are silly enough to do so, they try to pick holes in your story. So it becomes: “If it wasn’t the official story (flying pigs) then you tell me what happened!”

The answer must be something like: “Sorry, dude, you have to defend the flying pigs story before I tell you any story myself, i.e. I’m not ceding the initiative. So, flying pigs you say… now, could you explain this aspect that I never had clear…. how do these flying pigs, given their body mass, ever get airborne? Have you ever personally seen a pig with wings?” And so on…

A related tactic is when, in response to the most obvious common-sense observation, they will attack your qualifications to say whatever it is. You point out that pigs don’t have wings and they start asking you where you did your ph.D. in zoology. Or if you say that, even if a pig did have wings, it still couldn’t fly, they say: “Well, you obviously have never studied aerodynamics.” Essentially, the idea becomes that, in order to make the most obvious common sense observation about the world — pigs do not fly, bears do shit in the woods…. — you must possess multiple doctorates from M.I.T. or someplace.

Regardless, the underlying point is that, by necessity, they will go on the attack and grasp for some way to make you respond to them. Once you understand the concept of the initiative and apply it to this case, it becomes obvious that you have to make them answer your questions. So, if they’re defending their WOP narrative, you keep the pressure on: “So, pigs may possess wings, you say…. can you point me to any evidence for this?” Or: “You say pigs can fly, eh? Well, that’s fascinating. I can’t find any evidence for this. Can you help me?” Obviously, the defender of a WOP narrative is in a completely untenable position when facing such straightforward questioning and must try to turn the tables and make you respond to him.

So it is with a key event like 9/11. You ask them: “Can you point to any example of a steel-framed high-rise building collapsing in a perfectly symmetrical manner from randomly spreading office fires?” They’re obviously not going to give you the only straight, honest answer which is: “No, steel framed high rise buildings never integrally collapse from randomly spreading fires, and certainly not in a perfectly symmetrical manner.” They have to confuse the issue by trying to make you answer their questions or by attacking your qualifications or something like this.

What tends to happen is that, once you understand the basic game theory here, that you cannot voluntarily cede the initiative, the debate is over very quickly. For example, if you ask any of the defenders of the official 9/11 story a simple question: “Could you please outline the best evidence available that the government story is true — specifically that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by a man named Osama Bin Laden from faroff Afghanistan?” The question is obviously legitimate and a defender of the official story has no excuse for not answering you, yet you will never receive a straightforward answer. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and try it.

At the time of this writing, the recent (November 2015) events in Paris are still quite topical. The French authorities claim now that the terrorist mastermind was a young man, an ethnic Arab named Abdelhamid Abaaoud. Here are the photos of this “mastermind” that appear from a google image search.

https://www.google.es/search?q=abdelhamid+abaaoud&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix89uJ34nKAhVFaxQKHaLLApkQ_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=602

We should strive not to speak ill of the dead, but look at the photos: does this fearsome terrorist mastermind look capable of masterminding the tying of his own shoelaces? I think not. Now, people can jump on me and say that one should not judge a book by its cover. After all these Ay-rabs are devious, and Abdelhamid, in all these photos, may have just been pretending to be a dork.

Well, in all honesty, one must concede that this is possible. Still, my response to this is that if you say that the above pictured kid was the mastermind of these terrorist attacks, I’m going to demand the proof from you. And said “proof” really should not be one or more of:

  1. They told me on the TV that he was the mastermind, so he was.
  2. It’s true unless you can demonstrate that it’s false, i.e. you ask me to prove the negative.
  3. You’re a conspiracy theorist nya nya.

The basic concept here is this: if somebody is peddling whatever Roger Rabbit narrative, that Jihadi John and Jihadi Joseph are real individuals, this kid Abdelhamid Ibn Oswald was a great terrorist mastermind, or some other folks bayoneted some babies just for the pure fun of it — then they have to tell you what specifically the proof of this is. You cannot let them turn the tables on you and put you in a defensive position.

Closing Comments

This essay has been an attempt to address a very broad topic of discussion. To do so, I have introduced some novel terminology and concepts. One such is the RRN, which is the Roger Rabbit Narrative, in which cartoon elements are superimposed on reality. There is BDQ, the Bullshit Detection Quotient, the ability to see through the bullshit, which is a form of intelligence that does not seem very correlated with IQ. And then there is HIQI, the acronym for “High IQ Idiot”, which refers to people with a combination of high IQ and low BDQ.

When I showed earlier drafts of this article to some people, one comment I got back was that I should think twice about some of this terminology — well, in particular, HIQI.

You see, apparently, the conventional wisdom is that, if you want to win friends and influence people, you shouldn’t call them idiots. Yeah, that is probably a pretty well founded rule of thumb. So if I consciously break that rule and use the dreaded “I-word”, there ought to be a good reason. Or reasons. So let me explain.

First of all, I have not wanted for this article to be a pure exercise in venting my own frustrations. Since all of this is so utterly exasperating, that is an easy trap to fall into. I wanted to avoid that and actually write something useful. So, no, the novel terminology and concepts I have introduced, such as HIQI or BDQ, are not meant as throwaway insults. No, I really am trying to provide some useful framework of analysis. Really. But one problem is that if you are going to inform people that, unfortunately, they believe that cartoons are real, it is actually rather hard to sugar-coat this. I could not think of a euphemism that avoided the I-word, at least without using another term that is at least as derogatory. In fact, nobody who objected to my HIQI terminology ever proposed an alternative term.

But the thing is that I really am not trying to be derisive or scornful towards the people I refer to as HIQIs. No, because I make no bones about the fact that I myself was, by my own definition, a HIQI for most of my life. I believed all the bullshit too. So I understand. And I sympathize.

At the beginning of this essay, I linked the outrageous fight scene in the movie “They Live” and I said that I understood the scene much better now than when I first saw the movie when it came out so many years ago. Of course I understand why the character does not want to put on those sunglasses and see the world as it really is! Of course I do! It’s really depressing to put on those sunglasses or take that red pill and see the world as it actually is!

Now, the other side of this is that, when, for whatever reason, something snaps and you join the reality community, it is a real intellectual adventure. It’s exciting to learn, to start connecting the dots and understand things that you didn’t have the conceptual tools to understand before. But then the problem still is that what you do learn tends to be profoundly depressing. To realize what a rotten, corrupt society you live in is a real bummer. It’s not just realizing the truth about all the false flag terrorism. Sites like this one introduced me to economic analysis of people like Michael Hudson or Paul Craig Roberts and I started to understand how much of our economic order is utterly fraudulent. Sophisticated looting operations, Ponzi schemes basically, blowing bubbles and popping the bubbles and bailing out the fraudsters with public money. What are basically loan sharking schemes as you see there with Greece and other countries. Throughout it all there is a common theme, what Ron Unz calls “American Pravda”, the realization that the professional class that, in principle, is supposed to be informing you about the world, is devoted to lying and covering it all up. And heck, it’s not even normal lies in many cases. It’s the Roger Rabbit narratives, where people are pretending that cartoons are real! How utterly exasperating and infuriating is that?

So, yes. Hell yes. I now understand why the character in “They Live” fights like a possessed maniac to avoid putting on those sunglasses! And I understand why the people I refer to as HIQI’s are so resistant to being told the truth about a host of matters.

So, the point of this is not simply to heap scorn on the people I’m calling HIQI’s. I understand them. I was one myself.

The other thing this essay is not meant to be is some sort of call to the barricades. I myself am getting a bit too old to man any barricade. But to tell the truth, even at a younger age, physical courage and martial prowess were never my calling card. Anyway, if I was going to call on people to man the barricades, I’d have to know where said barricades are and also be able to make the case that manning them would do some good.

Still, I have used martial imagery right in the title, “battling” the Matrix — i.e. confronting the pervasive bullshit. So I am saying that this is a war. Of a sort. And a war has battles and skirmishes. Of a sort. To the extent that the analogy is valid, you do have to think about strategy and tactics.

I’m certain that if you study the great military leaders of history, Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte and the like, you see that they don’t engage in battle for its own sake. The goal is not to to engage in battle, or even to win battles per se. The goal is to win the war. In short, you only engage in battle when it makes sense to do so.

In our personal lives, we will interact socially or professionally with people who believe in all the Roger Rabbit narratives, and when you say you don’t believe it, the people will disdainfully call you a “conspiracy theorist”. Uh-huh, yeah, been there, done that… Certainly, there are cases where the situation can get sufficiently nasty and the people are so obviously a lost cause anyway, that there is little to do but to let the matter slide.

So, on the one hand, yes, I feel strongly that there is a real moral imperative in this life to stand up for the truth. That, after all, is why I wrote this essay. However, one cannot really advocate what amounts to pointless, self-destructive behavior.

I guess what it finally comes down to is that, in this infowar, like in a conventional war, you don’t engage in battle for its own sake, if nothing can be achieved. But if you judge that this is the right spot and you do opt to go into battle, you need a good understanding of the nature of the enemy, the basic strategy and tactics, and also the overall lay of the land. So, in this essay, I’ve tried to present some ideas in this regard. It’s not the last word on the topic, really more like an attempt to start a conversation.

Fan mail (as well as hate mail) can be directed to revusky at gmail.

 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 423 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Leftist conservative [AKA "Trump Kills Last Mosquito, Places Tiny Make America Great Hat On ZikaHead Baby"] says: • Website

    well, you are on the right site if you want to write about IQ. Most of the people here just want to read about IQ and history.

    Anyway, I think the phrase Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is more relevant to what you are getting at here. So, if you have a high SDO you align your personal perspective along with those at the top of society. Low SDO, you align yourself against those at the top.

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    As I was reading this essay, I kept thinking the HIQI were people that had “cognitive dissonance”. Anyway, I think this Orwell quote sums up the general problem quite well, “Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.” Thanks for the insightful essay.

  3. Rurik says:

    Excellent JR!

    It seems you’re trying to force us to put those sunglasses on- even if we don’t want to. But as you note, we have to take the red pill of our own free will.

    There surly are HIQI a plenty, but then I think you left out another significant group who might just show up here, and they are ‘the shills’. Some quite intelligent and others remarkably not so. But they’re legion, and they’re not lacking in bullshit detection, they are the bullshit. They’re the liars and smear merchants and apologists for the fiends of that day.

    Kudos to you sir for your obviously sincere efforts. If the people who actually planned and carried out 911 are able to get away with it, and all their wars and perfidious subversions of our freedoms- for which 911 was the pretext- then the rest of us are in for a future Orwell was only too prescient to warn us about. It would be prudent for us to try to avoid that. And I believe that exposing the criminals who perpetrated 911 is the most important, if noble thing we can do until the day comes when we won’t be able to.

    This is the crux of an existential war between Goldman Sachs and Halliburton and Monsanto and Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and Big Pharma and the Fed and Zionists in control of the West and her media and institutions and all the other Oligarchs of Satan and their minions and stooges vs human dignity and freedom in the 21st century and beyond. The stakes are too high to sweep aside this particular debate.

  4. Oh god thank you, incredible synchronicity, I just today was having lunch with two family members who are stuck in the Matrix- two HIQIs to be sure- and it was incredibly, incredibly frustrating trying to explain myself and how differently I view the world, media, and politics. I did literally bang my head in the table at one point. Needless to say, instead of trying to dig up a series of articles for reading, I have everything I need right here. Great piece. Thank you, just saved me many hours. Literally. Feel just like the author. For me, the LPM came right after the Boston Bombing, watching Sibel Edmonds and James Corbett do the Gladio B series of interviews and the ensuing rabbit hole I went down and from which I apparently will never emerge.

    • Replies: @PubliusMN
  5. I don’t know what happened on 9/11, but I don’t believe the official narrative, and haven’t for some time now.

    There’s too much there. Too many things that don’t make sense. Too many suspicious connections. Too many “coincidences.” Too many experts from different fields that explain how this or that doesn’t add up. Too much evidence destroyed. And too much of a lack of curiosity on the part of the media – especially regarding those Israeli “art students.”

    Only three buildings in history have leveled themselves “without” explosive demolitions, perfectly straight down, at the same speed as it would take for a rock to fall freely if dropped from that same height. And all three of those incidents happened on 9/11. The fail points had to have been symmetrical and synchronous.

    And that is only the beginning of the things that make you scratch your head.

    The TWA 800 incident is another one that doesn’t add up. There’s a very good documentary about it that came out a couple years ago, though I don’t recall the name. Check it out. The official narrative is a lie. Beyond that, I don’t know what happened or why.

    And what are the chances that a communist (plausible motive) who was taught to shoot in the Marines (plausible expertise) happened to have been given a job at a building and on the floor of that building that would later turn out to be a perfect shooting position for an assassin (plausible opportunity), should a Presidential parade route just happen to later be scheduled to come down the street below?

    And then there is Scalia? All alone. No security. No witnesses. The pillow over the head story is later “clarified” to avoid “misunderstanding.” No investigation. No autopsy. The most hated member of the SCOTUS bench dies under these circumstances when Barack Obama has less than a year to go, and when it looks like a maverick that cant be controlled is about to be elected POTUS in about 9 months.

  6. Gk0821 says:

    Wow, this essay was awesome and rang true on many levels. I especially appreciated what you termed the LPM, and I can say mine was the Ukraine crisis, and my eyes were opened by a podcaster no less. Ever since I started following politics in my sophomore year in 2011, it was completely obvious that the media was heavily biased in a partisan way, but I took for granted that some of the basic elements on foreign affairs and some issues were generally true. While looking for non-partisan analysis, I started listening to some political podcasts, including and especially Common Sense with Dan Carlin. Although he doesn’t completely throw out the traditional narratives, he’s generally reliable and is equally dismissive of both parties. So after gaining some trust in him, his analysis of the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and how it was so radically different from the NYT, WSJ mainstream consensus, really opened my eyes to a whole world of alternative media and was definitely my personal LPM moment.

    What’s also fascinating is the HIQI phenomenon. I grew up in an NYC suburb with both parents working in Manhattan, and one of my neighbors who also worked there had a “9/11 was an inside job” bumper sticker on his car. Even though he was by far the wealthiest of the already affluent neighborhood, my friends and I, as well as my law school educated, corporate parents all thought he was nuts. They still are all in, and I guess at this point they’ve decided on the blue pill and that’s not going to change, but I’m just shocked at how many people from the presumably high IQ professional class so easily manipulated by the media.

    And the one question I’d ask is how do you think the mainstream media so uniform in its control over narratives. Is it out and out corruption where corporate interests tell basically all the journalists what to write? Or do you think it’s more just group-think where maybe there’s a little collusion with the government and the NYT and then everyone just follows their lead. Or is it perhaps just that the incentives so strongly punish outside the box ideas they’re not even suggested. I guess my point is do you think that most journalists at the Washington Post or NYT for instance, are aware of how they are manipulating the public, or are they themselves being manipulated as well. (I feel like there have to be a few people at the top that are aware, but I’m curious if you think most are just typical HIQI professionals)?

  7. Truth says:

    Congratulations, Grasshopper, you have now achieved the lank of black belt. This signifies that you are leady to BEGIN learning.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  8. Revusky,

    What you have called the BDQ is really just a newly acquired proclivity for latching onto contrarian narratives based on a shift in your global intuitions about “who the real bad guys are.” It is still essentially the same old post hoc reasoning and narrative building, only now proceeding on the basis of a different credo.

    You may have taken the red pill but it did not lead you to reality, only to another matrix, a counter-matrix. The denizens of the two respective matrices don’t think too highly of each other’s beliefs and may variously argue, call each other names, or try to convert one another as the case may be; but in reality they are composed of the same substance underneath. The all-too-human tendency for Grand Narrative-style thinking runs in the veins of each of them.

    Simply converting to a new tribe doesn’t get you any closer to reality. It takes an enormous amount of self-denial, mortification, and philosophical expertise to transcend our basic human bent for tribal thinking, and there are no shortcuts.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  9. Tom Welsh says:

    A brilliant article! (Although, in terms of length, it’s almost a short book). The idea of the HIQI is fascinating, as it turns up repeatedly throughout history. Some related perceptions:

    “This is one of those views which are so absurd that only very learned men could possibly adopt them”. – Betrand Russell, “My Philosophical Development” (1959)

    “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool”. – George Orwell, “Notes on Nationalism (1945)”

    “A nerd is someone who, when told that a fair coin has come up heads 99 times in a row, believes that the chances of it coming up heads on the 100th toss is exactly 0.50. A non-nerd (the kind of person who tends to succeed in life), on the other hand, immediately assumes the coin is loaded – despite having been told IN THE RUBRIC that it is fair. And there you have it: a nerd is someone who wants to know the rules, and then sticks within them. Do you believe in finding out the rules and obeying them – or in making up the rules and having everyone obey you?” – My paraphrase of Nassim Nicholas Taleb ((“The Black Swan” pp 122-5)

    The common factor seems to be that a “nerd” (in Taleb’s parlance) is someone who likes to know the rules and stick to them. As if life were some kind of game, that is. (Such people also tend to like playing games, for that very reason). It’s quite likely that intelligent people are more prone to this weakness, because their education has conditioned them to accept “the rubric”.

  10. guest says:

    I don’t like to use the Matrix analogy because people might mistake me for talking about the trilogy of movies, two thirds of which was crap, instead of merely the first movie, which was ingenious. Better to stick with the original–or at least the earliest example I’m aware of–which is Plato’s cave.

    Oh also couldn’t help but notice The Matrix is redolent of Ira Levin’s novel This Perfect Day, which has the pills. It also brings to mind Alice in Wonderland, which The Matrix openly references and which lacks pills but has the Drink Me and Eat Me substances down the rabbit hole.

  11. It depends on what you determine as ” bullshit ”. Rightists love accuse the leftist idiocy, but they already have centuries of experiences in this department, with Christian nonsense for example, determining what should or should not do. Taming is needed, and not need be based on lies, but in mutual agreements vitally necessary cooperation to support human societies.

    The population ” ” high IQ is like any other psychometric layer, 110-120, 130-140, 90-100, or 90-110, 110-140, etc …. and most of them are neuro-typicals . One of the big bad interpretations of hbd-logy is to confuse the alpha + (or beta +) with omega outsider observer (not all omegas are observers, it should be noted) to conceptualize the genius.

    Brave new world has shown that even anecdotally, that genius tends to be the result of an ‘anomaly’. ”A few drops of alcohol in the blood” can make you unusual, less strong, more melancholic, and therefore more able to experience the phenomenon of existence in a completely unique way, and potentially rich in ‘new’ perceptions (creativity).

    Cognitive tests are related to ” HAVE ” a great cognitive potential, but human beings (on average, relatively and with great variation) evolved to the point of being able to look at reality, and not be engulfed by its dynamics, as happen with other animals. The enlarged self-consciousness can make him simulate reality by putting yourself in a position ” out-of-body perspective ”, as a neutral judge, something that science has done considerably. So this kind of fundamental intelligence, which I prefer to call as wisdom, tends to relate to BE exponentially intelligent, and human intelligence, even because of their superlative dimensions of potential impacts, must evolve together with morality.

    Iq tests may can perfectly reflect their cognitive potential, but which is fantastic and amazing about human being is that s(he) is able to produce new realities with their ideas and modify the environment and also their perception of the world. Tuesday, internalize and engage in smart ideas, morally correct and lucidly wise is BE intelligent. If you call yourself as a genius because of their scores on cognitive tests and NOT translate this preconceived assumption in right actions, from his private life, to their shared personal achievements, it is in fact what I have called the iqtard manifestation.

    • Replies: @guest
  12. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I seem to have a very high BDQ. Th first (and only) time I watched one of those beheading videos, I laughed because the fakery was so obvious. And ven before learning about the structural impossibility of the manner of the collapse of the towers in New York, there were other parts of the story we were being fed which seemed highly implausible.

    I would agree with your premise that Americans, more than other people, are likely to have a lower BDQ as you call it, then other people and I believe it is because Americans are in some ways the most indoctrinated people on the planet. If you ask most Americans to name one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, I greatly suspect ‘freedom’ of the press would be given by many of them. Of all the amendments, it is the one we hear most often about, the other I would argue is the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, this ‘freedom of the press’ when taken to its logical conclusion, implies the freedom for bias and misinformation. But, most Americans have never even considered that, they have been conditioned to accept the nobility of this ‘right’ and believe in the goodness and integrity of their news outlets. At least, those to which they choose to read, listen, or hear. The result of this is a populace whose opinions and beliefs can be easily molded.

    I wonder if you have considered the possibility that people with high BDQ are in fact people with high ‘raw’ intelligence. I’ve met an awful lot of people with masters and doctorates who do not strike me as particularly ‘intelligent’ or ‘sharp’ and seem to have a low level of ‘raw’ (my word) intelligence. They are are as well some of the most naive people I’ve met, as naive as their less educated compatriots. They would be loathe to believe that about themselves though, which makes them even easier to control. They may be good at what they know or do, but outside that they often flounder about like a fish out of water. An example is Ben Carson. No doubt he is a highly skilled surgeon and very educated in his way, but how much ‘raw’ intelligence has he? Very little from what I’ve heard and seen.

    All of this leads me to the conclusion that we need to find a better way to define intelligence.

  13. This is an important topic and so this article is much appreciated. The HIQI coincidence theorists contribute as much to the downfall of America as do the actual perpetrators of these monstrous false flag crimes. It is they that function to arrest logic within the general populace and prevent it from reaching a vital tipping point. Is it the confirmation bias that causes otherwise intelligent people to cling to an imagined false ideal of the world rather than deal with reality? Simple immaturity?

  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    We see this with climate change. Sounding clever takes second place to being right; where’s the benefit in being right along with all of the uneducated masses? The ability to impose unpopular narratives is a mechanism of power, power grants privilege.

  15. Parbes says:

    I don’t know whether the ISIS beheadings of a couple of Western journalists in Syria were real or staged (Revusky may be right about it being the latter); but it’s a definite fact that both ISIS and the other jihadi terrorist groups HAVE been doing a lot of beheading, as well as all kinds of other horrible atrocities, in Syria and Iraq. This is unequivocally corroborated by a wide variety of local and international sources, both Western AND non-Western (pro-Syrian government, Iraqi, Russian, Iranian, Kurdish, Turkish, etc., etc., in addition to pro-jihadi sources themselves, who proudly trumpet it). This is NOT a conspiratorial fabrication; it is a FACT.

    • Agree: Pseudonymic Handle
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  16. Rehmat says:

    LOL …. Jonathan Revusky you seems to be one the millions of brainwashed dudes who take CNN, FoxNews, NYT, BBC, WP, etc. as world from G-d.

    President JFK was assassinated by Israeli Mossad (former Rep. Findley) and Rev. Luther King was victim of FBI-CIA goons.

    As far 9/11 is concerned – one wonders why the Jewish Lobby is now chasing Donald Trump for mentioning that if elected president, he would re-investigate 9/11.

    Trump has accused Bush for lying about Iraqi WMDs and invading Iraq based on 9/11 attacks.

    “We went after Iraq, they did not knock down the World Trade Center. It wasn’t Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center. We went after Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran’s taking over, okay. But it wasn’t Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center. Because they have papers in there that are very secret – you may find it’s the Saudis,” Trump told his sheep.

    In other words, Trump pledged to form another ‘9/11 Commission’ if elected next US president, that would blame Saudi ‘royals’ in order to whitewash Israeli hands behind 9/11.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/02/22/donald-trump-im-911-truther/

  17. guest says:
    @Santoculto

    You imply leftism isn’t also weighed down by centuries of Christian nonsense, which I find exceedingly odd. For even if they’ve shrugged off Christianity in favor of secularism and science and reason, or whatever they call it, their ideas–egalitarianism, communalism, have a history. And that history is Christian as much as is the right’s.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Ask not what Merca can do for you my fellow sheeple but indeed what you can do for the 001%. That is the meaning of a true patriot and the e$$ence of love that binds US and keeps US a great nation. Do not be led from the flock by those that cast doubt on our Sacred Trinity of the Holy Hubris and the tenets upon which our exceptionalism is erected.

    ONE: Know ye that the evil Lee Harvey with magic bullets did alone smite the Knight of Camelot coz said Knight wanted to give away our stuff to the le$$er tribes.

    TWO: Our War Machine with NaSA did “land” a tin can on the moon “and do the other things” that Camelot Guy had promised before they blew his brains out live on TV. This mooning was pulled off with fred flintstone technology after microwaving our moononauts in the Van Allen Belt, then cruising a further 300,000 klicks out to finally “land” (pun intended) on the cheese ball. Then our guys scouted about in their “moon” buggy a tad, shot a round of golf and after delicious nutritious snacks and some more “Hassleblad” bad selfies and snapshots blasted 60 miles up into lunar orbit, did dock with mother ship orbiting there at 4000 MPH and then blasted home another 384,400.00 kms and splashed down in time for more snapshots and to catch Archie Bunker on late nite TV. (Be not ye tricked by those that tell you that almost 50 years later we can’t even manage to get to the low orbiting Intl Space Station at 400 kms without that damn Vlad Putin’s rocket ships.) Our stuff IS still up there on the moon….the other side of course and the Chinese are so blind they couldn’t find it!

    THREE: 17 cunning camel herders from the feudal abomination of Saud (our best buddy and keeper of our fiat petroscrip Saudi Mercan toilet paper IOU dollah currency) did blow up Merca on 9 11 coz they hate our freedoms and the selfle$$ spreading of our dung like demokracy among the lesser tribes. This they did with magic carpet expertise and our NSA GESTAPO found Mr Atta’s perfectly preserved passport (Allah Snack Bar) blocks away from the Thermite Towers and for this reason we had to wage war on all and sundry who dared U$e any toilet paper currency other than our own blood spattered and much smeared soft triple-ply U$er toilet paper to preserve the freedom$ of Planet Merca.

    All these and more true lies are the very foundations upon which our exceptionalism is built. Should so much as one of these beliefs be cast into doubt…then my fellow sheeple our entire sheep farm would be in jeopardy and you would very quickly be shorn and become mutton.

  19. My hat is off to you Jonathan Revusky. And my apologies for hitting you over the head on some occasions (but not others.)

    Insofar as the disinformation matrix, I would add beware of those specialists who persevere in attacking false narrative with alternative false narrative, it’s more than just a ‘cottage industry’ in professional information operations (meant to skew any increasing BDQ in people.)

    Sam Shama and I had a brief exchange (I don’t care to go digging for it, you can call me lazy) in a previous thread where I’d pointed to high IQ in case where people seemed incapable of competently chewing gum and tying their shoes in the same moment. Sam pointed out the immense damage such persona are capable of; when in position of responsibility and/or power. Relevant to this, on any number of occasions I’ve tried point out to people here in comments at UNZ high IQ does not confer common sense. Probably one of the worst related phenomena is those high IQ who actually believe in their own BS. Whether academic or whatever, such instance is ripe for manipulation by those professional masters of disinformation set upon our society from whence intelligence agencies and corporate boards are fused (best typified in Alan & John Dulles’ relationship to the board of United Fruit when director of CIA & Secretary of State respectively, how profitable was the related overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala to United Fruit? Such events saved the corporations tidy sums with related union busting and favorable subsequent tax circumstance throughout Latin America with the USA taxpayer picking up the overthrow dime.)

    Insofar as domestic corruption that is clear, pervasive and prone to building BDQ level in people, I recommend this somewhat maverick, conservative libertarian’s blog, dig through his archive and the typical citizen would be likely both nauseated and educated if only because the man thoroughly does his homework:

    http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

    ^ This guy stands head and shoulders above several of the UNZ authors when it comes to detailing the real, everyday corruption in the USA.

    And maybe because I’m a narcissist or maybe because I happen to know my shit pretty good, here’s tooting my own horn again on revealing the kind nastiness the USA taxpayer picks up the tab for (in ‘oh-so-many-ways’) to benefit scurvy like Exxon-Mobil and joe redneck doesn’t have a clue:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/11/29/whereas-the-enemy-of-your-friend-is-your-favorite-fk/

    Or in the case of a recent, exceptional piece in mainstream, the Boston Globe lays it out: American media lies to you:

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html?event=event25&s_campaign=sm_gp&hl=en-US

    ^

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  20. @guest

    Not if I let you understand it so it was not my intention, leftism is literalization of Christianity, purification over the famous christian hypocrisy and or contradictions.

    All cultures and religions take part of objective morality, to produce what I call subjective morality, that is, it depends on the context. Morality via convenience, which is incomplete and therefore potentially contradictory.

  21. You can think of propaganda as weaponized information. In 911, what you are seeing is a weapon designed to target your mind. In particular, it targets your critical thinking abilities. It brings your World View in to conflict with your intellect. That is to say, what you most deeply and strongly believe vs. what you know to be true.

    This creates a psychological, emotional schism that is forced deep into your psyche(by your own brain no less). It is a profound psychological attack. This causes the logical reasoning side of your brain to overload as it races to “square the circle. Your brain gores down an endless loop of:

    If X were true it would imply that Y is true. And Y can’t possibly be true, because it would imply that Z is true. And we all know that Z can’t possibly be true. Because, uh, well, I mean because the world just can’t be that way!”

    It will affect most powerfully those whose World View is strongly developed and are clever enough to figure it out, that is, those with strong a World View and strong analytic abilities. You are being Brain Hacked.

    What we see in 911 is singular and exceptional. Other “hoaxes” don’t come close.

    The Perpetrator(s) really were some particularly clever and nasty people. (or person)

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @Anonymous
  22. alexander says:

    It is a very interesting article you have written, Mr Revulsky, with some very perceptive and thoughtful points.

    But I believe you are perhaps too timid in your analysis as to how you define most, if not all, of the Bullsh#t that has been heaped upon the vast majority of Americans.

    It is Fraud, Mr Revulsky, plain and simple.

    Deliberate, pre-planned, and highly effective Fraud.

    We are living in the age of fraud..Mr Revulsky..massive ,systemic, heaving…. Fraud.

    What defines our time, most especially, since 9-11, is……. Fraud.

    Terror Fraud….War Fraud..Spending Fraud….. Banking Fraud….and Genocide Fraud.

    If there exists a “global empire” today, it is truly and most exquisitely an Empire of Fraud.

    What allows it to sustain itself ?

    Several things.

    First, there is the fact that most people, no matter how intelligent(as you say) are simply unable to see beyond the moral parameters their conscience allows….So just as it is inconceivable that any one of us would commit a terrorist act….so too is it equally inconceivable that we would commit a “false flag attack”, or that any, who function in our name, would do so either.

    This field, of the morally unthinkable, is precisely where Terror fraud operates most effectively,because it harnesses our own moral horror (while committing the act) and embraces it as its own.

    I actually did a study on the history of terrorism, and found the first to employ (if not invent) this technique (quite effectively) were The Sicarii,(70 B.C.E) Jewish Zealot Terrorists who used concealed knives to assassinate their victims within large crowds, then become the ones among the crowd, who weep and cry most vehemently at the horror of the attack, disguising themselves, and their culpability, in the process.

    The second thing, Mr Revulsky, is Power.

    Power … Mr Revulsky….sheer, unadulterated, power .

    It is Power….. over those who disseminate information….Power..over those who cloister it….

    Power…. over those among us assigned to investigate…..and Power, over those who shape our perceptions of what we are investigating…or why there should be no investigations…at all.

    Power… over those who attribute and demand accountability…..Power..over those who create and direct the narratives…..Power…. over those who create our laws…and Power…over those who control our purse strings….where and how we spend our money…and toward what goals.

    We live in the age of those triumphant in their power to defraud us, Mr Revulsky….

    Nothing less and nothing more.

    But consider for a moment my memories of 9-11,(and perhaps yours too) I was with my wife and baby daughter, and I recall the news and the image of the first airliner hitting the world trade center. I remember it was perhaps the clearest, most perfect day…not one cloud in the sky…and I recall my horror at how tragic this was…as an accident…

    It was literally and wholly outside my frames of reference, that this could be deliberate…

    It was the closest thing to impossible, in my mind, that this was an attack and not a horrible accident….even after the second plane struck…..it took me a long time to actually get my mind around the fact that this was a deliberate attack.

    So you have to understand, the moral parameters of peoples consciences, Mr Revulsky, regardless of how intelligent they are, in interpreting their capacity to be duped and defrauded.

    If highly intelligent people are easily duped and defrauded, its not because they are idiots, its because they are good.

    Perhaps its our own moral decency that has made us such easy targets for those who have defrauded us.

    And continues to allow it, despite what we have witnessed with our own eyes, even through to today.

  23. alexander says:
    @alexander

    Forgive me, Mr Revusky, as I realized, just now, that I had been misspelling your name.

  24. pyrrhus says:

    Excellent essay! My attempts to point out the physical impossibility of jet fuel melting steel girders has met with exactly the response you predict…. You might have also referenced the Dustin Hoffman movie “Wag the Dog.”

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  25. pyrrhus says:

    Another analogy occurs to me…”If you sit down at a table in poker and you can’t figure out who the patsy is, it’s you.”

  26. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This is a must-read essay by every American who can read. I came across this site just a few months back, and began to read it daily. Thank you!

  27. An enlightening and thought-provoking article, an example of why I visit the Unz Review every day. However, I thought the reference to The Godfather, Goodfellas and WOP was in poor taste. Perhaps Mr. Revsky doesn’t value his kneecaps very much.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  28. Tom Welsh says:
    @Truth

    Surely you mean “brack bert”?

  29. Biff says:

    My LPM came in the 1990′s when Noam Chomsky(not shilling for him, please) pointed out a tactic of counting how many times a media story is reprinted, and where it appears in news cast, or in print(front page, buried in the middle, in the back). It basically got me looking, and paying attention.
    A few years later there was the Hainan Island incident.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

    I counted, and read all U.S. Media reports(on a budding Internet) and I read media reports from other countries, and they were different in one major regard – the submarine. The Chinese submarine in the water below the fighter squadron was, across the board, omitted from all the U.S. Media. Was it by chance, or was it a concerted effort? If the latter then it renders the U.S. Media into the realm of pure propaganda. And if it was a concerted effort, why do it in the first place? Would the presence of that submarine in the story have changed American public opinion of the story? Since then I have ever looked at the media the same way – a few months later I was watching the towers in NY come down. A few short hours after the first plane hit, it was obvious the moment I heard it, that the narrative was written LONG before the incident happened, and it hasn’t changed in style, wording, or form since.

  30. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Intelligent Dasein

    It takes an enormous amount of self-denial, mortification, and philosophical expertise to transcend our basic human bent for tribal thinking, and there are no shortcuts.

    Seems ID still needs a bit of self-mortification and philosophical training to transcend his “basic human bent for tribal thinking”, as is evident from his comment on another thread:

    And yes, I do fully accept that the WTC towers (including Building 7) came crashing down as a result of the damage they incurred in a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim hijackers. I believe this not because “the government says so,” but because that is what happened.

    Emphasis added.

    But perhaps ID will explain to us now, why he knows “that is what happened.”

  31. Sean says:

    Aluminium melts steel, planes are made of aluminium.

  32. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    This essay is a useful attempt to come to grips with reality in the information age when the more “information” we have the more we depend on observation, not of reality, but of supposed representations of reality in the form of ink on paper or transient patterns of pixels on video screens.

    If civilization is to be saved, our educational system must replace such nonsense as black history, women’s studies, sex “education” and white shaming with, among other things, an intensive training in what might be called Internet Epistemology, the object of which would be to inculcate an astute skepticism of plutocratic-controlled information outlets, including most of the book publishing and entertainment industries, as well as the so-called news media. This, of course, will never happen.

  33. @pyrrhus

    I’ve got a steel/sheet steel machine in my basement specifically designed to extract the maximum heat from Jet fuel.

    It hasn’t melted once in 18 years.

    My own red pill moment came with Clinton’s excellent adventure in Oklahoma City.

  34. Max Payne says:

    The only lesson the Matrix trilogy had to offer was that racism was so powerful that even AIs are not immune to it.

    Agent Smith, a program which had near human-like hate for humanity, is the only program to cause such wanton destruction in the Matrix that the machines had to ask Neo for help to subdue him (in exchange for Zion to be spared its generational purge).

    Agent Smith is what allowed Zion to be saved. Without Agent Smith Zion would be on its 5th or 6th iteration.

    Racism. It saved the world.

  35. The first time I saw (on tv) the buildings come down I thought why would someone fly a plane into a building and then drop the same building with a controlled demolition. I was baffled when everybody said there was no controlled demolition and I was evil for saying that there was. I argued with people for a couple of years and then I just shut up about it. How otherwise intelligent people could be so stupid was and is a mystery to me. I don’t believe that any amount of reasoning will help. Each of us must be awakened by some event. For me it was the 2000 election when on national television, in real time, in front of God and everybody, the Supreme Court reached way out of its jurisdiction to decide a presidential election. I have learned a lot since then and my bullshit detector is functioning. After all these years there finally appears to be a crack in the seemingly impenetrable wall of ignorance. I am speaking of the public reaction to the Trump/Sanders candidacies. I am not suggesting that this election will save us. Only that the consciousness of the electorate has come up a notch reversing a long decline.

  36. utu says:

    You Mr. Revusky are trying to figure out what “they” are doing, what reality they are weaving together. You always will be few steps behind “them”, as Karl Rove one said: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    Will your exercise of parsing the reality have any tangible consequence? Or is it just a hobby? Believe me, the hoppy will make you unhappy. It will bring you grief. Because knowledge does not set you free. Only power does. But there is no turning around and returning to the state of bliss. Once you swallow the red pill it is over for you.

    • Replies: @bigal
  37. Qasim says:

    Excellent article.

    The following is a portion of a post I wrote 5 days ago on Robert Weissberg’s most recent article, I think it also germane to this discussion…

    Mr. Weissberg, I have a theory I want to share with you. It is based on something very profound you wrote in “Bad Students, Not Bad Schools” where you stated that a student’s ability to succeed is based on school facilites TIMES teacher quality TIMES the student’s intelligence. The multiplicative (as opposed to additive) nature of the equation explains why a dumb kid will never succeed academically no matter what you do, a million times a billion times zero is still zero.

    Anyway, I modified this equation as follows:

    Ability to reach the proper conclusion regarding controversial matters= .2 (education) x .3 (intelligence) x .5 (intuition)

    Intuition in this context is sort of a catch-all term but refers to espousing a correspondence version of truth vs. a constructivist version of “truth”, being a philosophical realist vs. a nominalist, being truth-seeking vs. being an ideologically-addled bullshitter (see Harry Frankfurt’s “On Bullshit”), and being a theist vs. atheist (they don’t call it Cultural Marxism for nothing).

    Anyway, I think your HIQI is someone with high levels of education and intelligence but little to no intuition.

    Your BDQ concept is also very insightful, it is too bad there is no accepted way to measure it. But you asuume in your article that the average person’s BDQ is 100. But the average person’s IQ is not 100, the average WHITE person’s IQ is 100. That is one of the foundational points of HBD, that the average IQ of the races differ.

    What if BDQ is no exception? That is to say, what if there are average group differences in BDQ, but in this case it is whites who are on the low end of the spectrum? This seems to me a plausible explanation of the HIQI phenomenon, the ubiquity of BS in America and the West, the inability of most whites to see through neo-conservatism, Cultural Marxism, etc.

    I remember in the run-up to the Iraq war (which seemed to me at the time to OBVIOUSLY be based on the most transparent BS) how NO non-white I ever met fell for the propaganda about WMD or Saddam being responsible for 9/11 in the slightest, every non-white figured it was really about oil or Israel or the revenge of Bush Jr. Maybe our higher BDQ saved us?

    Also, this might also explain why it is mainly whites that seem to fall for the BS that is produced specifically in the service of Jewish ethnic activism? (most of your recent examples fall in this category)

    Just some random thoughts I guess, thanks for an insightful article though.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  38. utu says:
    @alexander

    “If highly intelligent people are easily duped and defrauded, its not because they are idiots, its because they are good.” Exactly.

    • Replies: @alexander
    , @Santoculto
  39. Polymath says:

    An excellent introduction of helpful terminology. I had already figured out for myself how important it was to notice and not dismiss “Roger Rabbit artifacts”, as you aptly dub them, but the way you frame everything here really clarifies the attitude people need to have.

    Building 7 needs to be explained, and I notice when something that needs to be explained is dismissed without explanation. That is the “tell”–not the false narrative, because people can come up with false narratives naturally when the facts are unclear, but the pretending that a valid question was either never raised in the first place, or already answered somehow, rather than addressing it.

    It’s very important, as other commenters here noted, not to cling to tightly to specific counter-narratives. There is something fishy about 9/11, but there is no reason to doubt that the planes were actually hijacked, because nothing else can explain the disappearance of all the passengers. There is also no reason to doubt the involvement of Mohammed Atta and the others. But who was ultimately behind the conspiracy is certainly open.

    The pancaking style vertical collapse of the Twin Towers isn’t all that implausible (I have investigated the physics of this myself) but there are unexplained questions about Building 7 and about the Shanksville crash site. I pose no theories myself but I suppose we will have to wait for a President who cares about the truth before we really know.

    • Replies: @Eddie
    , @Wally
  40. vinteuil says:

    “At the time of this writing, the recent (November 2015) events in Paris are still quite topical. The French authorities claim now that the terrorist mastermind was a young man, an ethnic Arab named Abdelhamid Abaaoud…[google image link]…We should strive not to speak ill of the dead, but look at the photos: does this fearsome terrorist mastermind look capable of masterminding the tying of his own shoelaces? I think not.”

    Well, since you ask, yes – he does look perfectly capable of tying his own shoelaces. I mean, what would you expect a murderous jihadi to look like? Hannibal Lecter? Professor Moriarty? أبو الوليد ?محمد ابن احمد ابن رشد ?

    And this is the sole reason Mr. Revusky offers for believing that the “events in Paris” were faked?

    Pathetic.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  41. vinteuil says:

    Mr. Revusky also believes that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was faked:

    “When I first saw the news about Charlie Hebdo, I concluded very quickly that it was some sort of staged event, a ‘false flag’.”

    Offered reason? because the stuff the killers shouted didn’t live up to his literary standards:

    “Once I saw the cheesy Hollywood B film dialogue — “Allahu Akhabar! The Prophet is avenged!” — that nailed it for me. I said sarcastically to whoever would listen: “What is it with that B film dialogue? Were the guys who staged this on a tight budget? Couldn’t they hire better scriptwriters?”

    Again, I can’t help wondering, what would he expect? Selections from the The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám?

    What a maroon.

    • Replies: @alexander
  42. @Si1ver1ock

    What we see in 911 is singular and exceptional. Other “hoaxes” don’t come close.

    Disagree.

    There’s at least one other “hoax” somewhere between the Sicarii mentioned by alexander @ #22 and 09/11/2001.

    If the events of September 11, 2001 were a hoax then Charles Lindbergh was correct in his speech of September 11, 1941.

  43. alexander says:
    @vinteuil

    Speaking of maroons.

    How moronic was it for the alleged Perps in the Hebdo shooting to leave their ID in the getaway car, after having gotten away…just about free and clear ?

    Lord knows we all carry our IDs on us when we blow away innocent people and want to get away with it…don’t we Mr Vinteuil ?

    Perhaps the utter stupidity of carrying out such an attack is only followed by the utter stupidity of leaving your identification behind….. so we know its you.

    Or perhaps we are all just even more pathetically stupid then they, to accept one more cowardly act of Terror Fraud……. heaped in our faces, yet again ?

  44. @Qasim

    Please don’t waste people’s time with “random thoughts” if you can’t be bothered to work out that .2 x .3 x .5 equals 0.03 or somewhat short of the 1 which is presumably your peak ability to reach the right conclusion.

    • Replies: @Qasim
  45. Truth says:
    @alexander

    How moronic was it for the alleged Perps in the Hebdo shooting to leave their ID in the getaway car, after having gotten away…just about free and clear ?

    Didn’t one of the passports of the 9/11 “hijackers” flutter gracefully, and undamaged down to the Manhattan street, from the massive fireball seen around the world a few hundred feet up?

    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-14/fbi-agent-dan-coleman-explains-how-passport-911-hijacker-satam-al-suqami-was-found

  46. @Gk0821

    1. There are CIA operatives in every newspaper (check it out). 2. Almost all newspapers and media are owned by Zionists, who are of one mind, basically, and it’s not the humanistic mind.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  47. Eddie says:
    @Polymath

    “It’s very important, as other commenters here noted, not to cling to tightly to specific counter-narratives. There is something fishy about 9/11, but there is no reason to doubt that the planes were actually hijacked, because nothing else can explain the disappearance of all the passengers. There is also no reason to doubt the involvement of Mohammed Atta and the others. But who was ultimately behind the conspiracy is certainly open.”

    A document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century” published by The American Enterprise’s “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC), called for “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” being necessary to foster the frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle East that would politically and culturally reshape the region.

    System Planning Corporation (SPC) International executive, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, a respected and established voice in the intelligence community, went from his position at Systems Planning Corporation to become the Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001. (Perhaps not so coincidentally, it was an SPC subsidiary, TRIDATA CORPORATION, that oversaw the investigation after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.)

    System Planning Corporation, according to their official website, specializes in many areas of defense technology production and manufacture, including a system developed by their Radar Physics Group called the Flight Termination System, or FTS. This is a system used to destroy target drones (craft that would be fired on by test aircraft or weaponry) in the event of malfunction or “misses”. This highly sophisticated war-game technology allows the control of several ‘drones’ from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred miles. This “remote control” technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets.

    According to the SPC website, a recent customer at that time was Eglin AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in Florida – MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement.

    As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, and were being investigated, little was mentioned about these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and anecdotal evidence.

    • Replies: @TuneyLoons
  48. @alexander

    Does ‘moral decency’ not require as part of its ‘internal equipment’ an awareness of evil? If not, that is the biggest naivete.

  49. I hope JR is young enough to go through another revolution in thinking as he gets over the first shock of discovering that he might not know most of the truth without doing some careful thinking for himself.

    For those who think there’s something conclusively sinister about that ID being found in a car after the Charlie Hebdo massacre I can assure them they just have’t lived enough. I could cite a dozen examples easily of ordinary everyday human error explaining the little oddities like that. E.g. the four tax returns handed personally to a tax office person (because they were late and being accepted as a special concession in particular circumstances). A year later they were not to be found when the taxpayer again sought an extension for lodgment. E.g. I find a successful small business owner rushing back to the Post Office because he has left his whole bunch of keys together with USB stick and electronic security key sticking in the lock of his PO Box when he got distracted by a misaddressed letter… Etc. and many etcs.

    As for 9/11 I have never heard a version involving some Americans who wanted to provide a casus belli blamed on Middle Easterners that remotely makes sense. Set aside the loonies who don’t think planes flown by Arabs hit the twin towers and Pentagon, how could anyone expect there to be more than one in a million chance that they would achieve any useful defined result (presumably for Israel’s aim to further Balkanise the ME, let alone get access to ME oil that they couldn’t get more economically by buying it) by committing an outrage that must never be disclosed by a Bradley Manning, would have been adequately outrageous even if, say, the smashed Pentagon and still standing Twin Towers had been hit, and only uncertainly led to the all important attack on Iraq?

    And there is a strange omission to note the likely genuiness of most of the USIL horror videos (which I admit to not examining) if there is any plausibility in the theory that ISIL finds them effective in recruiting the disaffected or troubled young. At least genuinely from ISIL.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @guest
  50. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    One thing I noticed a long time ago was that many people who presumably have a good level of intelligence because they are in professions that require it, such as physician, lawyer, engineer, etc, are often very narrow people. They know the nuts and bolts of their jobs, sometimes really well and have gained recognition for that, but once they go outside of that they’re lost. Sometimes I’ve thought that this narrowness has been encouraged so as to keep people focused on being productive within their own sector without making connections to anything else and connecting the dots; everyone is compartmentalized into their own little sector.
    Supposed smart people, with credentials, can often be frustratingly dense. One person I knew said ‘they’re so smart they’re stupid’. It’s true. That’s why sometimes one shouldn’t allow themselves to be blinded by someone’s stature or presumed great intelligence. HIQI is a useful term. SI for Smart Idiot is shorter and more frugal with letters.

  51. @Truth

    Weren’t there thousands of documents which fluttered down from the upper floors of the Twin Towers on 9/11? Why wouldn’t most or many be undamaged? Wouldn’t you expect passports to stand out and be picked up ahead of most other docs?

    An afterthought. Wouldn’t it be plausible that a highjacker who wanted his glorious martyrdom to be known – or just the performance off his assigned task – to wrap up his passport and place it in a way which would give it a good or at least some chance of being found?

    • Replies: @Truth
  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    you guys always think you are right. that is why nobody listens when you talk about these things. no matter what, you see yourself as the enlightened “truth seekers” and the other person is just a sheep. this is no way to debate something and DEFINITELY not a way to get more people on your side (that should be the goal after all… right?)
    if you don’t like living in modern society go build a commune in south america and see how that goes for you. nobody wants to hear you talk about how much smarter you think you are than everyone else.

  53. Wally says: • Website
    @Polymath

    It’s not that deep, if a pig cannot fly then it did not fly.

    so essentially:

    - The government’s laughable & impossible 9/11 conspiracy theory is what now drives US / Israeli policies.

    - ’9/11′ has been an immensely profitable scam for various players in the US and Israel.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for our disastrous & mass murdering foreign policy of both the US & Israel.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for the theft of our constitutional rights.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for the enormous & continuous increase in government power.

    Yet the US govt. cannot change laws of physics, the government’s bizarre conspiracy theory is impossible.

    And it’s an established scientific fact that military grade nano-thermite was used in the 9/11 attack.
    Military grade nano-thermite was found at the WTC by the USGS & Niels Harrit of Univ. of Copenhagen, and 8 more scientists.

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    ‘Muslims in caves’ cannot make military grade nano-thermite.

    What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

    http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#beyond-misinformation

  54. The problem is there are so many dingbat “conspiracy theorists” who proclaim the “truth”, as they see it, that it all becomes noise after awhile. The 9/11 truth scene is especially bad about that. No, I don’t believe the official government narrative of the event, but I also have a hard time believing most “truthers” are anywhere technically competent enough interpret the event anyway. Yeah, I get the argument jet fuel can’t melt girders. Cool. But what about the holistic physics of an airliner hitting a building? No structural weakness will happen? Even engineers and physicists who would have specialization in or around his area will admit there’s not much literature on the physics of of a big ass ballistic object hitting a building.

    But I’m supposed to believe some armchair investigator on YouTube who didn’t even bother to read the 9/11 Commission Report (because he/she just knows it’s propaganda)? It’s one thing to question everything, but it’s something else altogether when most of these people can’t bother to look at both sides. Any argument against or disagreement with them just feeds their confirmation bias. You see the same thing in leftist media an education all the time (oh, you believe there’s a wage gap or that blacks commit most murders or that illegal immigrants aren’t great? Hey! You’re a piece of racist crap!).

    • Replies: @Wally
  55. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @alexander

    speaking of morooonic –

    didn’t the attack at the kosher grocery take place a few days later and in a far different locale than the original Charlie Hebdo attack? Like an afterthought — the Ay-rabs sed to theirseff’s, “In for a centime, in for a franc; let’s kill some Jews.”

    Or was it the case that Bibi sed to hisself, “What’s goin’ on here; no Jewish victims?”

    In record time, Jewish victims were produced; the perpetrators were killed, a tribute to the efficiency of Paris police; Bibi gets headlines about whether he will or won’t go to Paris; he goes to Paris, he hogs the limelight (pigs may not have wings but they frequently have elbows); the Jewish victims were dramatically and mournfully transported to Israel for burial (in coffins with adequate vent holes, one hopes).

    Never let a crisis go to waste.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @utu
  56. @Truth

    Actually, you’d be amazed at the amount of highly-intact debris found at the sites of major crashes and explosions.

  57. @alexander

    Perhaps the utter stupidity of carrying out such an attack is only followed by the utter stupidity of leaving your identification behind….. so we know its you.

    Well, of course they don’t leave their IDs behind. They leave behind the IDs of the people who are to be framed for the attack, the patsies.

    I wonder… What level BDQ are people supposed to have to figure that one out? It really ought to only require a BDQ of 80, I’d say. But apparently it requires much higher than that…

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  58. @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    Actually, you’d be amazed at the amount of highly-intact debris found at the sites of major crashes and explosions.

    Which makes it that much more remarkable that no bodies were found at the crash site in Shanksville, PA.

    The area around the Shanksville crash site had been used for strip-mining. Before the area was converted into a rather forlorn ‘memorial,’ the roadway to the coal mining equipment was just a football field off the access road to the crash site.

    The memorial has been built far distant from any supposed crash site. No actual, on-the-ground evidence of a crash is visible from the memorial.

    nb. the neighborhood around the 93 site is rural, not very wealthy at all — not unlikely folks who are more akin to Ludek’s housekeeper than to Ludek.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  59. @Parbes

    I don’t know whether the ISIS beheadings of a couple of Western journalists in Syria were real or staged

    Why specifically do you not know? You watched the videos and couldn’t decide? Or you just didn’t watch them?

    (Revusky may be right about it being the latter)

    So you accept the possibility that beheading videos were staged by a third party, maybe as the article I linked stated, by a company that does its filming in Mexico or Spain? Interesting….

    but it’s a definite fact that both ISIS and the other jihadi terrorist groups HAVE been doing a lot of beheading,

    But hold on a sec, here. Why would it be necessary to make fake beheading videos if there really is all this bona fide beheading going on?

    Also, why would they behead all these people when they can just shoot them and it’s so much less work? Because its more gruesome, no? But that only matters if you have witnesses, i.e. you film it and show it to everybody, right? If there was nobody filming, you would surely just execute people the easier way, by machine gunning them, no?

    So, again, why would there be fake beheading videos?To put it bluntly… how much have you really thought about this?

    The other question I posed about the beheading videos, you don’t address. The beheading videos allegedly come form the “Islamic State”, right? Have you seen any other Islamic State propaganda? Why don’t they make propaganda showing themselves doing good things? I mean, if you look at all the communist propaganda from the Stalin time, it’s all about all the wonderful things they’re doing for people, same with the Nazi propaganda. Why would a political group make propaganda solely devoted to convincing you that they are a bunch of evil barbarians?

    Have you thought about this? I mean, really thought about it….

  60. Dr. X says:

    Ah, yes… and Justice Scalia died peacefully in his sleep of natural causes, just by happenstance at the secluded ranch of an Obama donor in Obama’s last year in office. Pure coincidence.

    Well… this right here just pegged my bullshit detection meter to the max…

    http://www.infowars.com/video-obama-cracks-joke-about-scalias-death/

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Wizard of Oz
  61. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website

    Jonathan:

    Apparently you allow that some pigs do in fact fly.

    The conspicuous absence of the utterly impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ in your otherwise interesting lament is revealing.

    Dare to examine the absurd & laughable ‘holocaust’ storyline rationally, logically, and scientifically and it falls apart like the house-of-cards that it is.

    http://forum.codoh.com

    One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one.
    - endorsed by 34 “reputable historians” and published in the French daily Le Monde on February 21, 1979

    Who Profits?

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  62. @Wizard of Oz

    I could cite a dozen examples easily of ordinary everyday human error explaining the little oddities like that

    Well, you’re a very imaginative fellow, it seems. All of these bizarre cases of passports or ID being found at the crime scene all have various quirky little innocent explanations, eh? Well, how about this?

    The passport found at ground zero was planted to frame the patsies.

    The ID cards found in the getaway car in the Charlie Hebdo psy-op were left there to frame the patsies.

    The passport found intact from a suicide bomber at the last Paris psy-op was also planted there to frame the patsies.

    The next time a passport is magically found at the scene, you will have to come up with some other imaginative explanation. And I won’t have to because I’ll have the same one:

    The passport was planted there to frame the patsies.

    You see, that’s the essence of what BDQ is largely about. Pattern recognition. You see the same bullshit over and over again and you recognize the patterns.

    (Blah blah blah blah)…. blah blah….
    And there is a strange omission to note the likely genuiness of most of the USIL horror videos (which I admit to not examining)

    “Strange omission”, eh? Isn’t not watching a video and then arguing on some speculative grounds that it is likely to be genuine a “strange omission”?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  63. Max Payne says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Have you seen any other Islamic State propaganda? Why don’t they make propaganda showing themselves doing good things?

    There’s a lot of pro-ISIL videos, they just get taken down by YouTube.

    There was a really high quality version of this, with like HD effects in the maternity ward and everything:

    I can’t find the original piece, YouTube takes down the oddest things I’ve noticed (every high-quality video of a T-90 jamming a TOW in Syria is on that list for whatever reason).

    But yeah there’s a lot of those stupid pro-Islamic State propaganda. All one has to do is just look at their magazine (Dabiq) which has excellent quality in pictures and presentation and presents everything in a positive light.

    Link to the magazines, you don’t have to download them (no need to make more “jobs” at the NSA), but the cover pages should give you an idea:

    http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq

  64. @Ralph Raico

    An enlightening and thought-provoking article, an example of why I visit the Unz Review every day.

    Thank you for the kind words.

    However, I thought the reference to The Godfather, Goodfellas and WOP was in poor taste.

    Well, quite possibly it was. It was not meant to offend you. Really, it wasn’t. The thing is that the essay is quite long and there is the feeling that, to be readable, it should have bits of comic relief interspersed, that’s all.

    Gee, I wonder… what is your ethnic background??

    Perhaps Mr. Revsky doesn’t value his kneecaps very much.

    Oh, no sir, I do value my kneecaps very much so.

    Oddly enough, I make much more offensive wisecracks regularly and am well into middle age with my kneecaps intact. Maybe the thing is that I try, as much as possible, to only associate with people who possess a sense of humor. Not as a matter of principle, mind you. It’s just that life is more enjoyable that way.

    Anyway, I’m glad you enjoyed the article overall.

  65. AKAHorace says:

    I think that you are insane. But the fact that the Unz site publishes you gives me hope. I am glad that you have space to say what you think. And who knows, perhaps something you have said may be true.

    All the best.

  66. @Ronald Thomas West

    My hat is off to you Jonathan Revusky. And my apologies for hitting you over the head on some occasions (but not others.)

    I’m glad you liked the article, Ronald.

    To tell the truth, I have generally found your belligerence towards me to be rather puzzling. But, never mind, I’m willing to try to reset our relationship. Really.

    Insofar as the disinformation matrix, I would add beware of those specialists who persevere in attacking false narrative with alternative false narrative,

    Oh yes, definitely. The whole gatekeeper/controlled opposition sort of problem is a very big related topic. And I don’t really address it in this essay. I wrote quite a bit of text but still left quite a bit unsaid.

  67. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    Maybe it should be called Matriwicz.

  68. Dave says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Sorry Jonathan, but real jihadis are decapitating real people in the Mid East. Go to LiveLeak and several other sources and watch them all the way through. Nothing staged about any of it.
    There is a fine line between acceptance of large scale criminal conspiracies up to and including false flag operations and disinfo, but sometimes a cigar is really a cigar, and there are definitely some unhinged muslims doing some outrageous things. You can even watch video from Saudi Arabia where beheading is used as punishment for criminal activity. There is no shortage of real footage of real muslims engaging in this type of activity.
    Every single god damned crime that happens on Earth is not a false flag.
    Again, not questioning the reality of government conspiracies and PsyOps/disinfo, but western governments are not all powerful and all knowing, despite their interest in creating such a belief amongst the sheep.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  69. Wally says: • Website
    @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    Forget your appeal to authority, forget the ‘incompetent’, see:

    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    Thousands of engineers, architects, technical people of all kinds are involved.

    What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7:

    http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#beyond-misinformation

  70. @Jonathan Revusky

    What’s wrong with applying Ockham’s Razor to conclude that the most likely cause of the beheading videos, whether subject to more or less professional special effects or not, is that they are designed to terrify, to demonstrate ISIS’s success and power, and to inspire a particular kind of disturbed young person to join them?

    As to the supposed anomaly of there being no good works ISIS propaganda films, you may be right that there are none – and it may be simply that you haven’t come across them because neither ISIS, nor the MSM think their audiences will be grabbed by them – but that should raise the question why? Is it because there are in fact no genuine ISIS videos? That seems consistent with your reasoning. Alternatively isn’t it reasonable to start with the apparent fact that ISIL claims credit for some terrorist outrages, it doesn’t repudiate the beheading videos and it doesn’t propagate good works videos. Then a reasonable attempt at analysis would start with asking what that tells you about ISIS, its leadership and the way it wants to be perceived
    BTW, what kind of good works videos do you have in mind as the likely output of the ISIS of your imagination which doesn’t conduct gruesome massacres?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  71. Truth says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Weren’t there thousands of documents which fluttered down from the upper floors of the Twin Towers on 9/11? Why wouldn’t most or many be undamaged? Wouldn’t you expect passports to stand out and be picked up ahead of most other docs?”

    BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE FUQING PLANE WHICH BURST INTO A COMBUSTION FIREABLL, WITH, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL “HIJACKER” IT BELONGED TO!

    “An afterthought. Wouldn’t it be plausible that a highjacker who wanted his glorious martyrdom to be known – or just the performance off his assigned task – to wrap up his passport and place it in a way which would give it a good or at least some chance of being found?”

    “Hey Ahmad, don’t forget to bring that Asbestos briefcase that you will launch through the window you break, just before we hit the WTC…”

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @Wizard of Oz
  72. @Jonathan Revusky

    It doesn’t take imagination it only takes some life experience of human errors, not least by criminals, and of the way people obsessively latch on to odd details and repeat them over and over again to make one say “well that’s all totally inconclusive so let’s look at different approaches (including tracing out the necessary or probable consequences of the various hypotheses)”.

    And you effectually misquote me towards the end by omitting my words to the effect “if the videos are calculated by ISIL to inspire disturbed or disaffected young people to join it”. As I have pointed out later where are the ISIL denials? Or don’t they make videos at all? (Which would be one explanation for why they don’t have any of their good works, in case you really wonder about that).

  73. utu says:
    @anonymous

    ‘Or was it the case that Bibi said to himself, “What’s going’ on here; no Jewish victims?”’ – you are right about it. (Even though Charlie Hebdo is the 100% zionist outfit most French do not seem to perceive it. There is another color pill one must take to see zionist and Jewish things that surround d us. The French need it too.) So, the November 2015 Paris attacks were staged on the late evening on Friday. This minimized a chance of having Jewish victims and certainly excluded Jewish orthodox victims as to not mess up the narrative. The attack was meant to be on French and not just on Jews. As the result of Charlie Hebdo some French orthodox Jews made aliyah while the aircraft carrier de Gaulle stayed put in but after November 2015 attach the aircraft carrier sailed for Syria and then Persian Gulf.

  74. Truth says:
    @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    So the fire at the Pentagon was soooo hotttt, that it incenerated every trace of an airplane, but one letter and one wheel: wings, engines, bodies, seats, luggage, clothing, instruments, etc. But a passport makes it, intact, from a fire hot enough to melt high-temperature steel girders?

    Yeah, I’m done here.

  75. Truth says:
    @Dr. X

    …Well, the guy was 79 and fat.

    Sometimes shit just happens.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
  76. edNels says:
    @alexander

    Maybe so, but seems to me that the testing that determines the IQ’s isn’t vary thourough enough.

    Maybe the testing is aimed for certain characteristics, and not a full range, of ”intelligence”, such as the smarts to see through the conveinient lies… like those that you allude to. To busy figuring how to make a square object fit into a round hole, (and please teacher!) and missing the bunga bunga moves and who gets the girl? ?

  77. @Dr. X

    You should get your brain into gear before you cite the apparently callous way that the President made indirect reference to Scalia’s death – certainly eschewing hypocrisy – as if it supported your suggestion that Scalia was murdered. That is just plain silly.

    I knew Scalia personally, not well, and certainly not so as to share his views on anything I can think of, but well enough to believe he died from the natural causes likely to kill an overweight underexercised man of 79. Doesn’t it strike you as significant that his family didn’t want an autopsy? They included a priest son, a widow with views on abortion directly opposed to the President’s and two successful DC lawyer sons. Come off it! You give conspiracy theorists a bad name.

  78. @Jonathan Revusky

    I’m sure you realise this needs following up… How did the actual perpetrators get hold of the ID (has anyone BTW suggested it wasn’t genuine?) that was found?

    And unless you are an almost lone genius seeing the possible significance of misplaced ID docs there would be plenty of questions being asked about where those ID docs had been over the previous days and weeks. If not, why not? Because the initial questions were satisfactorily answered perhaps.

    I know it seems unfair to expect people in their agitated hermit’s cell to cover the whole ground of suspicious circumstances but one is entitled to ask even Aristotle why he was so sure that the male and female foetuses “quickened” at 40 and 90 days respectively after conception, or as to the shape of the earth, etc.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  79. @Jonathan Revusky

    Have you seen the pictures of a couple of Australian kids standing with their jihadist ISIS father in Syria holding up severed heads. There may have been more than one similar case but the most striking was one where the horrified grandparents in Australia were interviewed so the identification was pretty clear. Not professionally produced videos but entirely consistent with the view that some significant number of ISIS figures want to portray the savagery it is capable of. Come to think of it, if you doubt the genuineness of ISIS self portrayals of fearful savagery doesn’t that require you to doubt the substance of reports of their treatment of Yazidis, rape and enslavement of the women etc. If so where have your doubts led you in your inquiries?

  80. guest says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    One time I lost my keys and ended up finding them in the freezer. Go figure.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  81. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    200 proofs Earth is not a spinning ball

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg

  82. Qasim says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Please don’t waste people’s time with sarcastic comments, particularly if you aren’t smart enough to understand what the equation signifies, and instead just multiplied the 3 numbers you saw like a fourth-grader.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  83. @guest

    Yes you would probably believe the family legend firmly propagated by my wife that, some 25 years ago (well before…. you know) I put my tennis shoes in the refrigerator.

    Come to think of it many of my worst losses of wallets, credit cards, keys etc. have been the result of fatigue and stress typically after long flights and/or long car trips on top of long flights or other travel.

    And I was just on the point of getting a passport replaced when it turned up under some cushions on a chaise longue. At my tennis club I have accepted the advice to put my car keys with wallet and phone in a locker so the oxygen deprivation from hard exercise won’t cause my brain to allow me to drive off in the car without the wallet and phone. Aha, but I do remember a time when I deliberately left a political candidate’s carefully selected private financial record where a political opponent would see it and very likely fall into the trap of misusing it…. I just tend to prefer to accept the dictum that if the choice is between a cockup and a conspiracy you should, cet.par., put your money on the cockup.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  84. The article is interesting in another way. A few years ago I tried to go find some Mensa folk and ask them what they think happened. Mensa is the high IQ group. Mensa used to have a chat room. They actually could figure this out fairly quickly or at least have an intelligent argument, which I could then parse and form my own conclusion.

    But here is the interesting part. You can’t talk about these issues in academia or other professions without risking your job. That is really a big deal. When it gets to the point where people are so afraid they can’t even talk freely amongst colleagues, including tenured faculty at universities, something is very, very wrong.

    Mensa is gone. Don’t know where they went or why. Maybe I should put an ad on Craigslist.

    Desperately seeking Mensa.

  85. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    I understand there were never any bodies recovered from the flight 93 Shanskville ‘plane crash’. Isn’t that curious?

    They planned for flight 93 to hit Building Seven as the pretext for it to collapse, and when it was shot out of the air, they had to scramble for damage control. Shooting a missile into that existing scar in the ground was a desperate act to indicate where the plane crashed, with the whole improvised ‘let’s roll’ narrative as an afterthought. ‘We need a hero!’ some psyop pr expert from Langley no doubt chimed in.

    I wonder how many people commenting on this excellent article are sincere believers of the 911 Commission Report vs. the shills trying to do damage control.

    as an aside, I’m sure JR recognizes that some of the videos coming out of the horrors happening in Iraq and Syria are genuine, like the Al Nusra cannibal eating the still warm organ of the soldier. But he also makes an excellent point about the Wag the Dog – like production stuff that’s clearly CIA psyop stuff. Like the “Osama” videos.

    And in closing, the most salient piece of evidence I know of that 911 was obviously a false flag is the way the media reported on building seven falling before it did, proving advance knowledge of an event that no human could possibly have predicted, unless it had been wired for demolition.

    Forget the ‘dancing Israelis, forget the chimp sitting in that classroom, forget the anomalies at the Pentagon, forget the missing bodies in Pennsylvania, forget it all. All you need to do is know that the BBC and Fox News reported on the collapse of building seven before it collapsed. They knew they were bringing it down, but they f’d up and reported it too soon.

    Now our task is simply to find a way to hold those responsible accountable. A new investigation and to spread articles like this one as far and widely as possible.

    • Replies: @utu
  86. @Dave

    Sorry Jonathan, but real jihadis are decapitating real people in the Mid East. Go to LiveLeak and several other sources and watch them all the way through. Nothing staged about any of it.

    So you’re just going to make this claim and not provide a single link? Everything I see is as fake as six dollar bill.

    The other strange thing is, as I asked somebody else: if there is all this bona fide beheading going on, why do they make all these fake beheading videos?

    Do you have an answer for that?

    You can even watch video from Saudi Arabia where beheading is used as punishment for criminal activity.

    It’s true that Saudi Arabia (a staunch U.S. ally) like the U.S. itself, has the death penalty, and (unlike the U.S.) carries out capital punishment by beheading. But that has basically nothing to do with whether the Jihadi John and Jihadi Joseph videos are fake, which they are.

    Every single god damned crime that happens on Earth is not a false flag.

    Straw man much?

    • Replies: @Dave
  87. @Wizard of Oz

    I’m sure you realise this needs following up… How did the actual perpetrators get hold of the ID

    Let me get this straight. You are willing to believe in the magic passport that survived the fireball yet you are now going to express incredulity that the people behind a false flag can get their hands on ID for the patsies to frame them?

    Wow. Just wow. You know, I’ve really got to stop replying to your bullshit. It’s tempting because it’s too easy to knock off a reply. But the thing is that some other commenters here have raised some thoughtful points and I really should sit down and work up some replies to them rather thna replying to your bad-faithed BS. It’s a distraction.

    (has anyone BTW suggested it wasn’t genuine?) that was found?

    Actually, I believe it has been established that the Syrian passport found at the recent Paris event was fake.

    And unless you are an almost lone genius seeing the possible significance of

    No, I’m not a “lone genius” or even “almost” who sees through all this bullshit. There are plenty of other people who see through it.

    Because the initial questions were satisfactorily answered perhaps.

    Yes, they were satisfactorily answered. The “satisfactory” answer was: “You guys are conspiracy theorists! Nya nya nya!” Satisfactory answer for the likes of you in any case…

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  88. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I’ll add some material to the subject of the execution porn videos being discussed. Anybody notice that in this Middle East location all the prisoners are wearing American-style orange jumpsuits just like in American prisons? Does ISIS have a contract with some California prison supply outfit that sells that type of clothing? Videos of various executions that have taken place at earlier times in the general area usually show prisoners being killed wearing whatever clothes they were wearing at the time of capture. This seems rather peculiar.
    Initially, after 9-11, Osama bin Laden was reported to have denied any connection to it. Then later on videos were released in which he took credit. Anomalies in his appearance have been pointed out so it’s possible those videos are fakes. The US government claimed to have been looking for him for years when in fact he was living in Pakistan as a secret guest of that government. The US government must have known where he was all along since with a bit of money waved around there would be any number of Pakistanis willing to pass along the information. That’s assuming the US and Pakistan governments weren’t in collusion on this to begin with. The story about all those dogged hunters for him finally pinning him down is just a good cover story, more propaganda BS from the US government featuring some genius female tracker which serves as a recruitment enticement: ‘Hey girls, be all you can be and join the military. Exciting jobs available.’ If they could bundle up a dead body they could have done so with a live one. Think of what a treasure trove of information a live bin Laden would have been, a prize beyond compare. But, dead men tell no tales and that’s what they wanted.

  89. @Wizard of Oz

    What’s wrong with applying Ockham’s Razor to conclude that the most likely cause of the beheading videos,

    And what is wrong with actually watching said videos to determine whether they are fake or not?

    It’s funny how you guys keep referring to Occam’s razor. Somehow “applying Occam’s razor” always involves believing whatever bullshit, not disbelieving it. So, presumably, if little Johnny says he did his homework but the dog ate it, then if we think little Johnny is lying, we are not “applying Occam’s razor”.

    BTW, what kind of good works videos do you have in mind as the likely output of the ISIS of your imagination which doesn’t conduct gruesome massacres?

    Well, they could show videos of how people who were previously hungry and homeless are now well fed and have a home. They could have some other video showing how some poor woman lived a degraded existence selling herself on the streets, but now she is a good Muslim woman, they found a good Muslim man to marry her and she is devout and goes to the mosque.

    Well, whatever… what are you asking me? Heck, they could show themselves helping little old ladies cross the street.

    Actually, the whole idea that a political movement exclusively puts out propaganda to portray themselves as evil is a clear sign of a Roger Rabbit narrative. It is characteristic of a cartoon villain that he is evil in his own mind. In reality, people, in their own minds, consider themselves to be good.

    Regardless of what nasty things they really do, real propaganda of a real Islamic State would focus on the good things they do (or claim to do) for people. It would not be an endless series of beheadings and atrocities.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Stan d Mute
  90. @anonymous

    The US government claimed to have been looking for him for years when in fact he was living in Pakistan as a secret guest of that government.

    Well, that’s the current narrative. But actually, I think he was dead already. The real Bin Laden (as opposed to the comic book Roger Rabbit character) had a lot of health problems. He likely died in late 2001. To me, that’s the Occam’s razor explanation of why they couldn’t find him. Otherwise, somebody would have ratted him out for the 25 million dollar reward surely.

    Think of what a treasure trove of information a live bin Laden would have been, a prize beyond compare.

    Well, that’s assuming that their narrative is truthful and that he really was this incredible terrorist mastermind. If he was just a patsy, as I suspect, then he would not have been any treasure trove of information. That also is consistent with the seeming lack of genuine interest in taking him alive — assuming he really was alive, that is, which I doubt…

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  91. annamaria says:
    @Truth

    Don’t waste your breath (and time) on provocations from WoO.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  92. @vinteuil

    Well, since you ask, yes – he does look perfectly capable of tying his own shoelaces.

    It’s hard to believe that you really are such a numbnut that you don’t understand that this is a figure of speech. For example, when certain people said that George Bush was so dumb he couldn’t walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, do you think that was meant literally?

    And this is the sole reason Mr. Revusky offers for believing that the “events in Paris” were faked?

    No, that Abelhamid definitely looks like a doofus is not the sole reason to think that he is a patsy, an Oswald. There are other dead giveaways. However, I will decline to outline them at this point.

    No, as I said in the article, if you are claiming that the pictured kid is a terrorist mastermind, it is up to you tell us what the evidence for this is. If you accuse somebody of something, it is not up to me to prove the negative. You have to provide some evidence of the accusation.

    What specifically is the evidence for this? Oh, and note that the evidence cannot be evidence that is equally consistent with him being a patsy as actually being guilty.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @vinteuil
  93. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This, by far, is one of the most unusual and outstanding essays I have come across over the past several years of exercising my BDQ. The length seemed daunting at first but it is so readable throughout that I doubt it could have been made much shorter. Indeed, I had a moment of regret when it ended. The way one feels at the end of a gripping mega novel that immerses the reader in another time and place so deeply that he or she is reluctant to get back to the real world.

    Jonathan’s essay is of course anything but a piece of fiction. Most facts it narrates are familiar to people like me. What makes it different is the approach, a certain frame of mind. Like putting on the glasses in They Live. Jonathan’s humor flows effortlessly over the undercurrent of a sordid reality.

    My compliments to you, Jonathan. If you have other essays, as you doubtless must, I shall appreciate knowing where to find them.

  94. Don says:

    For anyone who would be interested, a former military guy gives a blow-by-blow account of his personal LPM in this article.

    https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/thirteen-years-ago-my-life-changed-forever-18644/

  95. @Jonathan Revusky

    You get excited and don’t pay attention. I don’t suggest that people couldn’t be framed by planting an illegitimately obtained passport but I do suggest that you should be less credulous about the planted passport and setting up patsies story. If you want others to believe what you have become so certain of it needs more than handwaving and claims to superior intuition. You need to at least try and spell out what happened from evidence you can put together. Unfortunately for your credibility you are vague about the important question whether the Syrian passport was the suspect’s own document and don’t even seem to notice that your reference to the passport possibly being fake is ambiguous. It coul matter whether the passport was a fake used by the suspect or simply a fake got up by the forces of evil that made him the patsy.

  96. Sam Shama says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    And a further point that might be a distinct possibility, which Mr. Revusky did not consider, is that the perpetrators of these massacres could very conceivably carry their passports, in order to avail the small chance of making good their escapes back to homeland were such a chance to present itself. Other than of course, the post-mortem “immortal name”, associated with the much greater likelihood of glorious death!

  97. @Jonathan Revusky

    Oh you are the young enthusiast aren’t you. Anyone beyond the age of naive excitability wouldn’t quote such a garbled version of LBJ’s famous jibe at Gerald Ford that he couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

    And in case that sounds gratuitously patronising let me link it to to your fallacious criticism of “vinteuil” who was quite obviously not taking your shoe laces reference literally but merely echoing your figure of speech. That criticism goes not to your youthful naiveté but to your verbal intelligence.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  98. Rurik says:

    making good their escapes back to homeland

    if a passport could survive it, I guess a well-trained and in-shape terrorist could as well..

    But he would have made greater efforts to secure his passport to his person. He would be needing it after all!

  99. @Truth

    Would you care to resort to better argument by referring to the actual evidence of what came down from the buildings, from which floors and in what condition they were?

    And as you must want to convince people and may even have made a systematic study of available evidence I wonder if you would be so good as to give references/links to the discussion of the significance of the passport? You aren’t about to tell me that you haven’t put this remarkable piece of physical evidence into its context as part of the case that you contest are you?

    Unfortunately I have had experience already on these blogs of truthers being proved to have ignored the available evidence; typically asserting that the official inquiry didn’y deal with a subject only for someone who knows the material to prove that to be total BS. So don’t try to tell me there wasn’t detailed consideration of the implications of the passport. Was its genuineness examined? Do you know?

  100. @annamaria

    So you are a truther are you? Given the primacy of your support for Russia or some pro-Russian view, and don’t appear to be a troll, I am surprised that you would diminish your credibility by seeming to side with people widely regarded as nutters.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  101. @annamaria

    Have you NO regard for your credibility! Are we really to take you as saying Bashir Assad’s description of Putin as the only real defender of Christianity publucised on a propaganda site is some evidence of something Americans or anyone should pay attention to?

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  102. @Sam Shama

    Thank you for expanding on the many possibilities.

    You have also prompted the thought that, though the development of a BS detector after youthful naiveté should be encouraged, IQ is actually very important insofar as it connotes the ability to keep a lot of thoughts in play in and about the short term memory at the same time. Stupid people find complexity more tiring than smart people who can handle it, though it is of course a matter of temperament as well as cognitive capacity.

  103. “You think the U.S. is the only country in the world where you can learn to fly an airplane? ”

    Actually, the U.S. is the easiest place in the world to learn to fly an airplane. We have very low regulatory overhead for this, and of course, anti-discrimination policies against people from bronze-age hell holes.

    I agree with some of this; a lot of what is presented as news is mighty fishy. However, the problem with keeping an open mind about what is presented as news is if your mind is too open, you start saying really dumb stuff like “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” based on internet research rather than actual knowledge (jet fuel doesn’t have to melt steel beams; steel’s structural strength changes radically at jet fuel temperatures, turning into wet noodles, which is why Blacksmithing used to be a thing).

    The Ludek Pachman story is a good one, but there is a better rule which probably more accurately reflects the reality of things from the American physics community. It’s called the “Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect” popularized by Michael Chrichton:

    “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
    That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.”

  104. @Qasim

    No sarcasm: merely the observation that the figures you were multiplying were resulting in a very small product in your “equation”.

    Be so good as to enlighten those for whom you have written so much, or perhaps, to be blunt, on whom you have inflicted your “randon thoughts”, how your “equation” is to be understood mathematically and practically. What is the significance of the product .03? If it is not to be related to 1 as the 100 per cent product then what does it mean?

    I don’t suppose I should criticise your description “random remarks” as meaning you were too lazy, and too discourteous towards your readers to take the trouble to organise and order your thoughts. I take it that you were offering an entirely appropriate apology for the woolliness of your thinking as exemplified – pending your clarification – by your “equation”.

  105. @Jonathan Revusky

    Interesting thought that he might have been dead for a long time so one turns first to the simplest problems with the idea. I proffer the need to have Obama as a tool of some tight cabal of plotters who might for some reason have wanted to maintain the fiction that ObL was alive and then that he had been found in Pakistan and killed. Obviously Obama’s natural course if he found that the death of Obama had occurred under Bush and been concealed would be to sack a few people and blame Bush and Republicans. The idea that he might risk approving some confected affair with Navy seals as an elaborate pretense has too many difficulties.

  106. @Jonathan Revusky

    Apparently they do put out other, feelgood, videos as someone else has pointed out.

  107. Svigor says:

    You’ve got quite a few leaps in logic in this piece, but the first one to really jump out at me (haha) is your assumption that my (or our) definition of comic-book villainy is the same as everyone else’s. Or a Muslim’s. Or a radical’s.

    First of all, capital punishment is normal. Beheading someone is little different from hanging, firing squad, or electrocution in this regard.

    Second, does the Saudi gov’t still chop off people’s hands as a punishment for thievery? What would adding a camera to the mix really tell us?

    Third, Islamic insurgents have been disseminating execution videos since forever.

    None of which is to say that the videos aren’t fake, mind you. I’ve never watched one, and I’m agnostic on the subject.

    I would, however, find Islamic State’s position on the matter to be instructive. Curious that you ignore this most important facet of the conversation: does Islamic State even deny the authenticity of the videos?

    I infer that anyway, because if their audience actually believed that the beheading videos were real, the skit would be outrageously tasteless.

    Yeah, who ever heard of a thing as crazy as a tasteless Jewish comedian?

    TL;DR-ed the rest. Maybe in another comment.

  108. Svigor says:

    Leftists would seem to have something in common with Conspiracy Theorists: it’s possible to have a mind so open, your brains fall out. Not saying your positions (insofar as I read) are wrong, but, your arguments don’t inspire confidence.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  109. Svigor says:

    Do Muslims still castrate their black slaves, or is that no longer the fashion? I know they still take pedophilia as Holy Writ, so I won’t bother to ask about that one.

    Mr. Revusky also believes that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was faked:

    “When I first saw the news about Charlie Hebdo, I concluded very quickly that it was some sort of staged event, a ‘false flag’.”

    Offered reason? because the stuff the killers shouted didn’t live up to his literary standards:

    “Once I saw the cheesy Hollywood B film dialogue — “Allahu Akhabar! The Prophet is avenged!” — that nailed it for me. I said sarcastically to whoever would listen: “What is it with that B film dialogue? Were the guys who staged this on a tight budget? Couldn’t they hire better scriptwriters?”

    Again, I can’t help wondering, what would he expect? Selections from the The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám?

    What a maroon.

    This.

    Speaking of maroons.

    How moronic was it for the alleged Perps in the Hebdo shooting to leave their ID in the getaway car, after having gotten away…just about free and clear ?

    Lord knows we all carry our IDs on us when we blow away innocent people and want to get away with it…don’t we Mr Vinteuil ?

    Perhaps the utter stupidity of carrying out such an attack is only followed by the utter stupidity of leaving your identification behind….. so we know its you.

    Or perhaps we are all just even more pathetically stupid then they, to accept one more cowardly act of Terror Fraud……. heaped in our faces, yet again ?

    Nobody ever accused Arabs of being particularly bright. Dindus are always stepping on their meat while committing crimes.

    you guys always think you are right. that is why nobody listens when you talk about these things. no matter what, you see yourself as the enlightened “truth seekers” and the other person is just a sheep. this is no way to debate something and DEFINITELY not a way to get more people on your side (that should be the goal after all… right?)

    The goal for many is to be part of a small, pure, elite minority. A subculture. Being perpetually relegated to the fringes is a feature for these types, not a bug. I’ve seen a lot of this from “hardcore” White Nationalists (mostly of the skinhead variety). If the subculture went mainstream they’d leave it and find some other cause to feed their need. Basically, they like to play dress-up and be antisocial.

    Actually, you’d be amazed at the amount of highly-intact debris found at the sites of major crashes and explosions.

    I’d be amazed if there wasn’t a shitton of intact and mostly-intact debris. Fireballs are highly overrated.

    It’s true that Saudi Arabia (a staunch U.S. ally) like the U.S. itself, has the death penalty, and (unlike the U.S.) carries out capital punishment by beheading. But that has basically nothing to do with whether the Jihadi John and Jihadi Joseph videos are fake, which they are.

    Well, there goes your argument, torpedoed by you. How it’s ipso facto crazy that Islamic State would be proud of beheading people when Saudi Arabia is proud of beheading people is anyone’s guess.

    Actually, I believe it has been established that the Syrian passport found at the recent Paris event was fake.

    Jihadis are entering Europe using fake passports? Say it ain’t so.

  110. Rurik says:
    @Svigor

    Leftists would seem to have something in common with Conspiracy Theorists: it’s possible to have a mind so open, your brains fall out.

    ideological leftists are just as closed minded as ideological right-wingers, perhaps even more so.

    I don’t think JR is being overtly leftist by pointing out the obvious fact that many of the CIA videos of ‘terrorists’, (like “Osama”) for instance are faked. And I’m sure we all agree that many of them are real. I’m pretty sure the video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive was real. And it certainly didn’t endear the world to the cause of ISIS. But that’s not the point. The point is that 911 did not happened the way our government and media says it did. They’re lying. And elements inside our government were complicit with that singularly heinous crime. Dick Cheney, Dov Zakheim, Philip Zelikow, and certainly men like Larry Silverstein.

    We’ve murdered and maimed and displaced millions of innocent people because of that event, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of American lives ended or ruined. And it was all based on lies.

    So if his arguments don’t inspire confidence in you, what arguments do, pray tell? The official version? That’s laughable.

    It is right and proper for JR to point out that this false flag crime has been used to murder and maim millions and destroy country after country. And all of it is a treacherous lie. We should be spending our energy on investigating and prosecuting the real criminals who perpetrated 911, not destroying the Muslim countries of the Middle East so Israel can steal more land.

    But hey guess what? There are many ideological Zionists who are all for the agenda of using the US military to destroy Israeli’s enemies; perceived and otherwise. And they have a motivation to obfuscate what really happened on that day so that the American people don’t catch on to the ruse, and start looking at who really is responsible, because then things just might get dodgy.

    Dr. Alan Sabrosky – former Director of Studies at the U.S. Army War College.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  111. Sean says:

    How would anyone know the towers coming down was faked without knowing what a very similar real plane crash fire/collapse looked like ? Certainly it is possible to say it is impossible in principle that the planes/fire/aluminium detonations brought the buildings down .

    However, it certainly is possible to massacre lots of people with an Kalashnikov, or cut a man’s head off with a sharp blade. Unless you admit having seen a real beheading video, how can you tell others are fake? Money can be counterfeit only because genuine currency exists. This post is like saying “life is a illusion”; if there is no real reality at all, then calling (what we take to be) actually happening an “illusion”” is without meaning.

    [MORE]

    He’s dreaming now,” said Tweedledee: “and what do you think he’s dreaming about?”
    Alice said “Nobody can guess that.”
    “Why, about you!” Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly. “And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you’d be?”
    “Where I am now, of course,” said Alice.
    “Not you!” Tweedledee retorted contemptuously. “You’d be nowhere. Why, you’re only a sort of thing in his dream!”
    “If that there King was to wake,” added Tweedledum, “you’d go out — bang! — just like a candle!”
    “I shouldn’t!” Alice exclaimed indignantly. “Besides, if I’m only a sort of thing in his dream, what are you, I should like to know?”
    “Ditto” said Tweedledum.
    “Ditto, ditto!” cried Tweedledee.
    He shouted this so loud that Alice couldn’t help saying, “Hush! You’ll be waking him, I’m afraid, if you make so much noise.”
    “Well, it’s no use your talking about waking him,” said Tweedledum, “when you’re only one of the things in his dream. You know very well you’re not real.”
    “I am real!” said Alice and began to cry.
    “You won’t make yourself a bit realler by crying,” Tweedledee remarked: “there’s nothing to cry about.”
    “If I wasn’t real,” Alice said — half-laughing through her tears, it all seemed so ridiculous — “I shouldn’t be able to cry.”
    “I hope you don’t suppose those are real tears?” Tweedledum interrupted in a tone of great contempt.
    “I know they’re talking nonsense,” Alice thought to herself: “and it’s foolish to cry about it.” So she brushed away her tears, and went on as cheerfully as she could.

    Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There. (1871))

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  112. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    A few years ago I was fired from my Tidal Power Technology company and after a sabbatical started a modern day alchemy gold making project (yes we make gold and the big bang is now the big bust). At one point I had 3 kg of 1150 deg C molten metal explode into my upper body and face.

    In recuperation I reflected on what the hell I did wrong and took a hard look into the mirror and asked the question. What is my relationship with reality? The answer was difficult but obvious. I did not have a functioning relationship with reality. (and neither does 99% of the rest of the world)

    When the quark was smashed in the particle colliders, all that was found was empty vibrating space (encoded energy and the Matrix Movie was 100% accurate).

    Bottom line, the 13 year old with the 3 DVD box set video of the Matrix has a better education that our Harvard MIT PhD’s and a better functioning relationship with reality.

  113. utu says:
    @Rurik

    ” I wonder how many people commenting on this excellent article are sincere believers of the 911 Commission Report vs. the shills trying to do damage control.” – Mostly shills. 9/11 belongs to the too evil to expose category. The truth about 9/11 is the existential threat to the state of Israel. Notice the shills under this article are the same who do hasbara whenever Israel and Jewish issues come up elsewhere.

  114. Dave says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You’re being ridiculous or trolling, and I’m not going to provide links to LiveLeak. Look them up yourself.I have a feeling you won’t. The ISIS beheading videos may very well be faked and I’m quite sure ISIS or elements of the Islamic State are being funded and trained by various intelligence agencies. That doesn’t mean jihadis don’t behead captives. Many videos of Christians being beheaded.
    It’s not an either/or proposition. Even various American intelligence agencies are at cross purposes. That doesn’t mean Muslim terrorism doesn’t exist.
    Do you think the Siege of Vienna was a false flag ? Was the Ottoman Empire a huge PsyOps maneuver ? Yes that’s a strawman, but at what point do you believe all Muslim terrorism came under western control or direction ?
    I know there are serious problems with the standard 9/11 script. I live in NYC and lived there during the whole fiasco and know firefighters that spent weeks at ground zero and even they have serious doubts and reservations about the storyline, although many don’t want to discuss it at length. But that doesn’t mean Saudi hijackers didn’t get on airplanes under the firm belief that they were attacking the U.S.
    It’s a complex subject with disturbing overtones, but don’t throw discretion out the window in a quest for the truth.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
  115. Svigor says:

    ideological leftists are just as closed minded as ideological right-wingers, perhaps even more so.

    You’re preaching to the choir. It was a rhetorical point (surely you’ve heard the “liberals’ minds are so open their brains fall out” thing before).

  116. utu says:

    Does ISIS really have SEVEN-FOOT tall executioners? Parts of grisly film showing beheading of 21 Christians were faked, claim experts

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963039/Does-Isis-really-army-seven-foot-executioners-Experts-say-footage-beheading-Christians-Libya-FAKE.html

  117. @Eddie

    Fail.

    Remote controlled planes are subject to the same laws of physics and aerodynamics as real ones. A 767 cannot fly at stated speeds at low altitude.

    Also, F=ma. If you step through any video of jet images impacting Towers you will find that the plane flies through its own length as it enters the shot (in air) in 11 frames. If you again count frames when the jet image contacts 6 floors of high grade steel structure, you will again find it takes 11 frames to fly through the steel and concrete. There is no significant deceleration. Therefore F=m(0)=0. There is no force available to do the work of breaking the steel structure. Cartoon Physics, WOP scenario.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @MarkinLA
  118. utu says:
    @round waffle

    Gell-Mann Amnesia and Ludek Pachman story describe two opposite effects. Gell-Mann despite of first hand evidence that newspapers’ science stories cannot be trusted continues to believe NYT coverage of, say, Palestine and Israel while Mr. Pachman acknowledges superior insight of his cleaning woman and modifies his own approach to parsing the reality. Furthermore Mr. Pachman wonders why he or people of his social strata are more gullible with respect to some stories in some situations.

  119. @Wally

    Indeed, the ‘holocau$t’ storyline is quite the ‘story’, an impossible story at that. Hence it’s falling apart faster than a cheap suit.
    Your appeal to the authority via the “father of modern history” has turned against you. von Ranke would have not accepted a storyline that was utterly impossible.

    I believe that he would have. There’s simply more in the way of historical evidence in support of my version than yours.

    Let’s assume for the moment that your allegation is true, i.e., that there are no mass graves. (I of course disagree, but you started this thread, which is about “Holocaust certainty,” so I’m not going to belabor that point here.) We would have to rely on the eyewitnesses and on the documentary record.

    Regarding both the eyewitnesses and the documents, the predominance of the evidence is with my story, not yours. You can point to a document or two referring to camps in Poland as “transit camps” and a tiny minority of deportees to these camps who did in fact travel through the camps.

    I can point to dozens of eyewitnesses calling these camps extermination camps, including those very people that you point to as proof of transit, not to mention a dozen perpetrators, none of whom demonstrated any evidence of being coerced.

    Your impossible storyline says Jews “were murdered in many places over the course of several years …”.
    The problem is that you cannot prove/demonstrate that they were murdered. As I said previously in this thread, and you ignored;
    “[b]The Purported Believers have already told us that they [alleged Jews and alleged others] ‘went’ to enormous mass graves which they claim to know the exact locations of, but cannot show us a single excavated, verified enormous mass grave as alleged. Not one.[/b]”

    Your story holds no water.

    So the question to ask ourselves, given the topic and the current subtopic of Ranke, is how he would have addressed the issue of the missing bodies (bearing in mind my caveat above, i.e., that I disagree).

    Absent the emergence of at least one percent of the missing people with some degree of certainty — which your side cannot do — the logical conclusion is not that, therefore, they did not die. Rather, the logical conclusion is that something was done with the bodies.

    And wouldn’t you know it? That’s precisely what my side says.

    [MORE]

    The Revisionist position is elegantly simple. [b]You can’t have murders of ’11,000,000′ people without enormous and verified, and I do mean enormous, physical evidence to show.[/b]
    You cannot have alleged murder weapons, the alleged German ‘gas chambers’, which laughably defy laws of science, logic, & rational thought. Such conjured weapons could not have worked as is stated in your storyline. This forum is filled with threads on that very subject.

    The specifics of the Reinhardt camps fall under the above, simple as that.

    You have your scientists that say one thing, and I have my scientists that say another. I’m not a scientist. Neither are you. So the issue of science is one on which we must both claim ignorance.

    That said, there is one sure-fired way to prove once and forever that the means described would not have worked. Get yourself 1,000 volunteers and a big enough room and throw in some Zyklon-B. If you’re so 100% sure, be certain to include yourself.

    You are so scientifically sure, but until you do that, the preponderance of the evidence — again — is on my side, not yours.

    I mean hey, I haven’t seen nor heard from countless old friends, acquaintances, schoolmates, distant relatives etc. for decades.
    Using your logic they were all murdered.

    But certainly other people could come forward and identify that these people are alive, if they are. But your side can’t do that for one percent of the missing from Aktion Reinhard.

    Tell me, Thames Darwin, has there ever been a conviction of anyone since the post-war Show Trials for enormous mass murders in alleged centralized sites without the excavation, verification, & display of the claimed murder victims?

    I am legitimately not sure what you’re asking. First of all, do you mean Nuremberg only or all “show trials” since the war?

    There is tons of information about Jews being transited out of camps/sites and ‘where they went’, see:
    ‘J. Graf and the illogical canard: ‘Where did Jews go then?’ / & more’

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272

    I ask for the proof of the whereabouts of 17,000 Jews — a mere one percent of the Jews subjected to Aktion Reinhard. Please note, I am being IMMENSELYcharitable by asking for such a small number.

    ‘WJC’s Stephen Wise said 1,250,000 – 1,500,000 Polish Jews homeless in Europe, outside of Poland, & alive after WWII’

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10191

    You have any proof that he knew how many Jews Poland had before the war?

    • Replies: @Wally
  120. vinteuil says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    For the received wisdom on the Charlie Hebdo & Paris incidents, the confirmed lefties who rule at Wikipedia have put it all together in about as coherent a narrative as one could reasonably expect, here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    and here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

    There are hundreds of footnotes/links. You could, quite literally, spend the rest of your life following up on all this stuff.

    Anyway, before would-be skeptics start fixating on this or that oddity or improbability, I strongly suggest that they read through these articles, complete, clicking on all the links they can stand, so as to get a clear idea of what they’re up against.

    Jonathan Revusky’s whole modus operandi, his bread & butter, is to get people unfamiliar with the received wisdom to focus on the odd footnote, here and there, while ignoring (1) the big picture, and (2) his utter failure to provide a remotely plausible alternative narrative.

    He strains at every gnat on the one side, while swallowing whole every camel on the other side.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  121. @Jonathan Revusky

    Jonathan, I wouldn’t commit yourself to the idea that ISIS doesn’t do beheading. Not only are there numerous credible eye-witnesses, but they try and follow Shari’a as it was written in the Koran, which prescribes decapitation–not shooting, not hanging, not lethal injection–for a whole range of crimes.

    That being said, it’s obvious that the videos are fake. I knew there was something wrong right away, when I failed to actually see any beheading in what had been billed as ‘beheading video’. I remembered that in 2004, when they captured Nicholas Berg in Iraq, they had no qualms about showing the actual deed. So I was totally non-plussed with these Jihadi John videos. ‘WTF is this?’ I wondered. ‘A G-rated beheading video?’ Pointless.

    And thanks for a great article too, Jonathan.

  122. @Wizard of Oz

    Have you NO regard for your credibility! Are we really to take you as saying [that something] publucised on a propaganda site is some evidence of something Americans or anyone should pay attention to?

    It’s worked for New York Times for 164 years +

    Wall Street Journal has been editorializing for about 70 years, including in its editorial opinions massive propaganda. Still, people pay attention to it.

    Washington Post was founded in 1877. Today it publishes the odious scribblings of the odious Jennifer Rubin, propagandist extraordinaire. Still, the paper thrives. sort of.

    The Chicago Tribune, founded in 1847, was staunchly opposed to New Deal and to US entry into WWII (good call, imo). It’s been bought, sold, reduced, revised and reimagined. But it still circulates just under half-a-million copies daily and about 850,000 on Sundays. More than Unz I think.

    Sheldon Adelson bought a newspaper and gives it away for the sole purpose of supporting the psychopath Benjamin Netanyahu. It’s all propaganda all the time. Credible?

    Unless I’ve mistaken the entire tenor of Revusky’s writing, the task of being an astute consumer and user of information obtained from even established, distinguished, long-lived, credible sources is to Ask Questions; examine the information critically; look for patterns; run it through the BS grinder.

    I really appreciate and commend JR for his interesting perspective on recognizing/reimagining BS, and especially for the Roger Rabbit model. But I have to say, my long-dead Mennonite great-grandfather used to make a geared little wooden toy that he slyly called (when his Irish wife was not in earshot) a Bullshit Grinder.

    Speaking of the Roger Rabbit model: Revusky’s RRA puts a name to a phenomenon that is manifest in a DVD that was part of my own Sunglasses moment: “Imaginary Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust” explains how, starting 20+ years after the (alleged) event, the cartoons were drawn to match the holocaust narrative that was propagandized beginning at least 40 years before the event.

    Consider this paragraph, and crank it through the Chronology feature of the BSgrinder:

    [MORE]

    Hollywood did not only tell stories about the Holocaust, it actually helped to document the war. “Directors Frank Capra, John Huston, Billy Wilder, and George Stevens all worked for the Army Signal Corps’ motion picture unit. So important did the US government consider their work that after liberation, film crews went into concentration camps even before medical teams.[4] In the portion of the film describing the initial screenings of their footage back in the U.S., a portion narrated by film editor Stanley Frazen and screenwriter Melvin Wald, Wald says that “It was the most horrifying thing I’d ever seen, because the inmates walking in their black and white uniforms were like ghosts,” and Frazen admits that he had to leave the projection room to vomit.

    Notice that the same folks who produced anti-German propaganda (narratives and visuals – films) almost a decade before war became hot, came along after the war to film the dead and dying people that were magically discovered by Eisenhower’s forces on April 4, 1945. By that time, Stalin’s Red Army, having captured most of Poland, had been within 40 miles of Berlin for at least three months.

    Allied forces — of which Eisenhower was supreme commander — were in the Rhineland and had defeated the Germans by that time — early March, 1945. The distance between Remagen, on the Rhine, and Ohrdruf, the site of the grisly images that were grist for Eisenhower’s post-war propaganda films, is ~320 miles.

    Meanwhile, on March 1, 1945 Allied firebombers completed the work begun with the Thousand-bomber raid over Cologne; March 1 marked the “end of Cologne.”

    In March 1945 Dusseldorf “endured 243 air raids.” By March 11, 1945, 96% of Dusseldorf had been incinerated.

    “Five-year old Gerd Fammler and his mother and sister no longer left the shelter; they lived there. ‘It wasn’t nice to have to live in such dim light, especially for us kids. Whenever I smell damp, musty concrete in old buildings it brings memories of the Second World War to mind, of bombs, bunkers, flames, and pain.’ ” from The Fire, by Jorg Friedrich, p 219.

    On March 16, 1945 Wurzburg was “wiped off the face of the earth” by British carpet bombers under the command of Arthur Harris.

    “On April 5, 1945, Harris complained that ‘it was already extremely difficult to find suitable targets.’ (fn 152) In east central Germany, Chemnitz was bombed on March 5 by 720 British planes carrying 1,100 tons of bombs; one-third of the city area was burned down. Two days later, 84 percent of Dessau, the old royal residence, was destroyed; on March 12, Swinemunde experienced its ruin; on March 31, 1,100 tons of munitions shattered one-fifth of the houses in Halle. Zerbst, Frankfurt (Oder), Nordhausen, Potsdam, and Halberstadt went down in April.

    On April 7, the U. S. First Army had reached the Weser River, and together with the Ninth Army they continued marching on to the Harz Mountains. ** To scare the local population, Gauleiter Lauterbacher told them on April 7 that “all males between fourteen and sixty-five in the enslaved western regions of the Reich were brought together in assembly camps and are guarded by Negroes and Jews. Our women were abducted and taken to Negro brothels.” (fn 153) If that were true, it would still be a preferable fate to what the British No. 5 Mass Destruction Group did in Nordhausen — six thousand dead, including 1,500 concentration camp prisoners– and what the U. S. Eighth Air Force did in Halberstadt.”

    ** As William Shirer noted in the opening pages of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, the Allies recovered a vast amount of German documents, much of the cache from the Harz Mountains.

    Due to agreements FDR had made with Stalin, and because Ike did not want to put US forces in harm’s way, the Red Army wilded in Berlin and in Germany, raping 2 million German civilian girls and women.

    How long does it take to reduce a human being from, say, 150 pounds to 80 pounds if he/she has no food at all?

    On DECEMBER 13, 2010, in a talk titled General Eisenhower and the Documentation of the Holocaust, part of the seven-month series “Eisenhower and the Righteous Cause: The Liberation of Europe,”

    Rabbi Harry Reicher talked about an episode which occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust. While liberating concentration camps and witnessing sights that “beggar description,” General Eisenhower ensured the horrific scenes were captured for posterity in graphic photographs and film. Rabbi Reicher asserted that he grasped the impact which visual evidence was to have in the Nuremberg Trials, and foresaw the era of Holocaust denial. Video clips of concentration camps were shown.** Professor Reicher also responded to questions from members of the audience. . . . Portions of this program may be disturbing to some viewers.

    ** Several observations about the film clips that Rabbi Reicher references place that entire event in the Roger Rabbit category.

    First is the timeline noted above. Eisenhower was certainly aware of the devastating bombing raids being carried out against Germany’s civilian and industrial infrastructure; he should have been aware of the starvation conditions that would ensue and that prevailed at Ohrdruf. Eisenhower was in a position to alleviate those deaths. He chose not to.

    Most damning is the display of shrunken heads and lampshades supposedly made of Jewish skin.

    In “ The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. author Peter Moreira records that

    “a turning point in Morgenthau’s relationship with the [Jewish] community came in November 1942, when Rabbi Stephen Wise came to [Morgenthau's] office in the U. S. Department of the Treasury to tell [him] what was happening in Europe. Morgenthau knew of the millions of deaths and the lampshades made from victims’ skin, and he asked Wise not to go into excessive details. But Wise went on to tell of the barbarity of the Nazis, how they were making soap out of Jewish flesh. Morgenthau, turning pales, implored him, “Please, Stephen, don’t give me the gory details.” Wise went on with his list of horrors . . .[ Morgenthau's secretary] was afraid her boss would keel over. (fn7) Morgenthau later said the meeting changed his life.”

    In 2010

    Both the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., and the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem, declined to take possession of [a] lampshade [allegedly from Buchenwald and allegedly made of human skin], saying that the concentration camp lampshades made of human skin were probably a “myth”.

    Rabbi Stephen Wise lied to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., a lie that had deadly consequences. At Morgenthau’s instigation, brutal measures were put into place against the German people after the war, such that more Germans, civilians as well as ‘disarmed enemy forces” died after Germany’s surrender than during the war.

    As round waffle noted in #109,

    “In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.”

    If the U.S. Army Signal Corps together with the Hollywood propagandists who “arrived at Ohrduf before the Red Cross” under Eisenhower’s direct command, went so far as to manufacture evidence in the form of shrunken heads and lampshades made of ‘Jewish’ flesh, why should anything they said be believed, particularly when the propaganda narrative had been used at least three years earlier to incite and incentivize an otherwise already zealous zionist with an admitted animus toward Germans.

    The scenario that Reicher explains and praises, that the Roger Rabbit film that Eisenhower had prepared was used at Nuremberg to powerful effect, is actually yet one more indictment of the offense against justice that the Nuremberg trials represent.

  123. vinteuil says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Thanks for the props, WoO.

    But I very much doubt that Mr Revusky suffers even the least little bit from
    youthful naiveté.

  124. vinteuil says:

    Mr Revusky challenges us to watch a beheading video, and judge for ourselves.

    OK, I’d suggest this one:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=24c_1445470744

    All faked by the Mossad, no doubt.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  125. vinteuil says:

    Oh, and then there’s this delightful video, to reassure anybody who doubts that Muslim immigrants love us all and mean us all well:

    Another Mossad effort, of course – ’cause, obviously, a bunch of innocent goat-herders couldn’t possibly have brought off anything this polished.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  126. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    How about HIQT, high IQ tool. More pc than idiot. But idiot is correct. Some people see the world in black and white. Some see in color.

  127. Rurik says:
    @vinteuil

    from the article:

    Now it does seem that there really are these thug/mercenary/gangster types controlling large parts of Syria and Iraq. It is also possible that they do execute people, maybe even a lot of people.

    he’s not saying it never happens, just that so many of the videos we see are faked

    so please, give your distraction a rest

    if you think Osama and his henchmen did 911 and you have better proof than Dick Cheney said so, then please edify us. Otherwise you’re just looking petty and puerile – at best.

  128. vinteuil says:
    @Rurik

    sorry, rurik, no deal.

    I’ve got a particular interest in the French cases, and don’t like seeing self-promoters like JR lying about them.

  129. @TuneyLoons

    Are you saying that the appearance of aircraft flying into the Twin Towers (and Pentagon presumably) was faked? How do you account for what people in the street saw?

    As to the force required to “break the steel structure” are you just amusing yourself by irritating trolling or do you really not know, as another commenter hss just explained wrt the heat generated by jet fuel, that the explanation you need to counter if you are a truther is that there was enough heat to weaken the steel frame because it lost its rigidity?

  130. @Sean

    Anyone quoting the Rev Charles Dodgson always has a head start with me but it also makes you ripe for a quibble. As the sensible Alice might have observed would you really need to have seen a genuine beheading to know that one was fake which, say, purported to show Osama bin Laden sitting nearby with a 2016 copy of the Wall Street Journal in his hands…. But thanks for lining up to oppose nihilist nonsense. (Please someone quibble about my use of “nihilist” so I can fine tune its use for greater assurance that it is the mot juste).

    • Replies: @Sean
  131. I can relate to the HIQI phenomena. Know a few myself, and it never ceases to amaze me how any doubts and uncertainties that stray from the mainstream consensus are so intellectually out of bounds to them. So much so that logic and reason, which is their strong suit, is immediately discarded and replaced with uncompromising and irrational emotional outbursts. IMO, it’s not that an intellectual debate isn’t winnable, it’s that one is not possible given their heightened emotional state. It’s not that they are idiots, it’s that at moments like these they are in no condition to think. I can only assume that they are so emotionally invested in the system in which they have succeeded that any challenges to it are taken in as challenges to their very own sense of self worth. Your tenured college professor types are the worst for their success is entirely system dependent, and the escape from reality made possible by spending the vast majority of their life in the classroom is nearly impenetrable. Their only chance of opening their mind to other possibilities lies in the system turning against them. Until that day, you may as well just enjoy the fun you can have rattling the cage of these emotionally fragile potted plants. Trump potentially capturing the republican nomination is the horn of plenty that keeps on giving if you enjoy the occasional light hearted cage rattling as much as I do. Talk about a guy with a first class BS detector and the willingness and ability to communicate it…

    • Replies: @Clearpoint
  132. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This really ruins the whole idea of “red pilling” someone on anything because it’s usually a harsh truth about reality in a far right lens.

    I have never seen anyone use “the red pill” in some psuedo-pretend-to-be-edgy-except-not-actually-edgy-at-all-because-the-liberal-media-protects-and-breeds-my-narrative-they-just-don’t-admit-it” about 9/11 and only 9/11. Even though there are truther movements everywhere that no one has ever touched and obstructed. Don’t you think they would’ve done something a little less…complex? Like just a bomb? There were simply to many individuals that would’ve known that would’ve leaked key things by now especially because everyone HATED George w. bush. and if anyone noticed, a social justice warrior by the name of Edward Snowden – a traitor worthy of execution came out and risked his life to fight “the evil fascist government”. Why didn’t anyone come out for this event?

    This is really absolute hogwash because a mainstream liberal belief of our time is 100% that bush went in for oil and many of these voters DO suspect that, you can poll college kids to find this out. The funny part is I thought this would be good and it’s typical lefty nonsense speaking about something that they think is edgy but actually BENEFITS the very individuals in power. Anyone with a brain knows the far left has been winning nonstop in the USA – why wouldn’t they be writing laws/talking about how 9/11 was a horrible loss/Islam shouldn’t be here/no more mosques/ no more Islamic immigration? Wait. They want the opposite. They want you to think we did it to ourselves. It benefits them for you to distrust authoritarian viewpoints on immigration and interventionalist politics in the Middle East.

    Did Israel do it? Who knows. I doubt it personally.

    There are conspiracies theories for every story but most of them don’t hold up to common sense. We went in for oil? Oh really? How much did we get? None? Oh right. There’s that damn reality at it again.

    Look into what happens when molten aluminum + water/moisture combine and your explanation for the quick collapse is silly.

  133. @Sam Shama

    And a further point that might be a distinct possibility, which Mr. Revusky did not consider, is that the perpetrators of these massacres could very conceivably carry their passports, in order to avail the small chance of making good their escapes back to homeland were such a chance to present itself.

    In the case of the alleged hijacker whose passport was found at ground zero, he had to have his passport with him because otherwise he could not board the plane. The problem with the narrative is how the passport survived the plane crash and fireball and arrived intact on the ground not long afterwards.

    In the case of the Kouachi brothers who allegedly left their ID’s in the getaway car, there was no similar need for them to have their ID on them. They were already on the ground in Paris. As for escaping back to their homeland, they were in their homeland. They were both French citizens, born in Paris.

    In the case of the latest thing in Paris, last November, I think it was a forged Syrian passport. So there is no certainty that the identity on the passport is real or belonged to anybody who was there.

    Anyway, one odd thing is that self-styled debunkers always throw around this “Occam’s razor’ concept, that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is likely the true one. (Except for when they don’t like the simple, obvious explanation.)

    The simplest, Occam’s Razor explanation of the ID’s always being found on the scene is that they were planted in each case. Other explanations require a separate explanation for each case — how the passport survived the fireball, why the brothers left their ID in the case, and so on… When you have a simple explanation that explains all cases, that’s Occam’s razor in action, isn’t it?

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  134. @vinteuil

    For the received wisdom on the Charlie Hebdo & Paris incidents, the confirmed lefties who rule at Wikipedia have put it all together in about as coherent a narrative as one could reasonably expect, here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    and here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_a

    All that Wikipedia does with these Deep Events, whether it is the JFK assassination or 9/11 or any of them is that the wikipedia page is a synopsis of the official tall tale.

    So when you are pointing to the wikipedia page on any of these events as proof of the official story, you are pointing to a summary of the official story as proof of the official story.

    The official story — independently of whether it is true or not (though it never is…) — cannot serve as proof of the official story. The technical term for this is the “beg the question fallacy”. Actually, here is the Wikipedia page on that!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

    On all these deep events, the false flag terrorism psy-ops, there is a community of independent researchers that have proven every which way to Sunday that the official story is false.

    Now, as for this later statement of yours:

    I’ve got a particular interest in the French cases, and don’t like seeing self-promoters like JR lying about them.

    Okay, so you are French and believe that the government and media and everybody else cannot possibly be lying to you about this. You are not emotionally capable of grasping this. Therefore I must be the one lying.

    Well, okay, that says more about you than about me. All the non-HIQIs here no perfectly well that the entire elite of your great or once-great nation is lying and I am telling the truth.

    But, okay, it’s one or the other. The authorities, the entire French elite are lying to you or I am. So you figure I am. In a way that even makes sense….

    I would just leave you with this little intellectal exercise:

    (a) Outline all of the reasons that the French State (and media and so on) have to lie about these incidents in Paris.

    (b) Outline all the reasons that I have to lie to you about them.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  135. @vinteuil

    Mr Revusky challenges us to watch a beheading video, and judge for ourselves.

    OK, I’d suggest this one:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=24c_1445470744

    (sigh)

    Did you watch that? It’s just as fake as the one I linked in the article!

    Not just my opinion. There are 217 comments under the video and everybody is pointing out how fake it is!

    All faked by the Mossad, no doubt.

    Most likely, yes. The psy-ops to demonize Muslims are pretty much all Zionist operations, yes.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  136. Yes, they were faked. Badly. People who see impossible things are either lying or deluded. I saw Superman fly on TV, but I don’t think that he can fly in real life.

    An aluminum plane cannot leave a cartoon cutout in a steel structure. If you knew anything about aerodynamics you would know that the B767-200 cannot exceed 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet altitude. The official Zelikow Myth stops right there. There is precedent for this in the disintegration of the 767 flight, Egypt Air 990, which broke apart due to overspeed at 22,000 feet.

    The planes were pre-recorded and composited into the videos. This is easily proved by stabilizing the footage, which makes the jet’s separate camera motion readily apparent.

    I’m not a truther, they are all co-opted or duped by their so called leaders. I am an engineer.
    As I have already disproved the whole 9/11 story, I have no need to quantify the heat needed to
    weaken a structure made of 100,000 tons of high grade steel – (which would act as a giant heat sink) and never get hot enough to be weakened by paltry office fires in 50 minutes.

  137. @round waffle

    Actually, the U.S. is the easiest place in the world to learn to fly an airplane.

    Maybe you need to think about this a little more. I have no idea whether the above assertion is correct in general, but in the specific case of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, it most certainly is not.

    In fact, the alleged hijackers at the flight school brought a lot of attention to themselves because they were such incredibly bad students. Now, let’s think, why were they such bad students?

    I think the main reason is that most of them did not really know English. I believe it was Hani Hanjour who went up with a flight instructor and after they got back on the ground, the flight instructor said “Never again”. It was terrifying. Probably because Hani Hanjour didn’t understand anything the flight instructor was saying.

    I believe Hani Hanjour (or another one of these guys) was in the U.S. well over a year before 9/11. He was taking an intensive English language course.

    So at least one of these guys supposedly went to America, enrolled in an intensive English language course (because he didn’t really know English) in order to later study how to fly the plane in Florida.

    Suppose you were somehow convinced to carry out a suicide operation in Russia but you needed to learn how to fly a plane. Consider this story. You go to Russia over a year before the operation. You do an intensive course of study in the Russian language so as to be able to study how to fly the plane in a flight school in which the language of instruction is Russian.

    Is this a plausible story? Or would you stay in your own country, study how to fly the plane in your own language and then go to Russia to carry out the operation at the last possible moment?

    Maybe I pulled punches on this in the article even. I outlined this scenario and even proposed it as a basic BDQ test question even leaving out some levels of detail as to why the story is so utterly absurd.

    There is no way any real suicide hijacking operation would work the way this one allegedly did. It’s all superfluous anyway. It’s just another degree of the WOP narrative. Even if a plane hitting a steel framed building could cause fires hot enough to make steel columns fail AND even if all the steel columns failed simultaneously producing a vertical, symmetrical collapse THEN…. the story is still absurd because no suicide hijacking operation would ever work the way this one is alleged to work!

    Nobody would go to the target country over a year before the operation, study the language of the target country so as to be able to enroll in a flight academy where the language of instruction was that newly learnt language so as to be able to fly the plane into the building.

    The thing is, though, that once you realize that the story is simply not true, for one of the basic reasons that the story can’t be true, then all the other reasons the story can’t be true start dawning on you. And then you become amazed that you could ever have believed the story! At least that is my case with this. But I doubt I am alone.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  138. @anonymous

    Not totally implausible speculations perhaps but it is easy enough to see why they preferred Osama dead. After all he would be mo more likely to provide information the US government wanted than say Saddam Hussein even if they were to take the risk of torturing him. And they would hardly want him given a platform in court. Imagine what would happen every day between his being sentenced to death and the actual execution. Imagine what would have happened if he was locked up for life in a known location.

  139. @anonymous

    Also – perhaps just a trivial fortune teller’s just so story – but wouldn’t it seem like a good piece of theatre and negative PR for ISIS to get hold of material that would allow their prisoners to be dressed like American orange suited perps? The right inference might be that they are quite smart and imaginative in their use of media. After all the asymmetric military tactics of Taliban et al have been too smart for most American generals. (I’ve just seen a v. doco of Australia in Afghanistan and right at the outset the Americans and Australians in what was described as the biggest battle of the war got themselves caught in a 3000 metre altitude valley ambushed by a much bigger force than they knew about which was ready for them thanks to the Afghan forces who were meant to be doing the heavy lifting but in fact leaked the plans and never pressed their attack at all).

  140. @round waffle

    You remind me of my reading Time Magazine in my early 20s when I concluded that on any subject I knew quite a lot about it made quite serious mistakes. I can’t now say that it reliably made me doubt everything written in it but I can pretty confidently say that it reinforced my general all round scepticism about media, expert witnesses and any source of important knowledge that some people relied on fervently or just adamantly. Go on picking nits and the question of what is the precise truth may have passed you by….

  141. Truth says:

    Watch the news, guys:

  142. @Gk0821

    There is no better analysis of how the mainstream media (dys)functions at the level of social institution than Herman and Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”. It is in fact true that by the standards of the social sciences their “Propaganda Model” is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, certainly far more so than any competing model such as “the free press” or something like that, which are in fact simply asserted, no proof ever being offered. The most obvious untruth they explain is that media companies sell news to readers. Wrong. Generally speaking no media business can survive if the “cover price” was their only revenue. Advertising is what the business is about. They in fact sell not news to audiences but audiences to advertisers. Think about who the advertisers are (Governments, MIC, big pharma, etc) and it explains a lot about what they include and what they exclude. The MSM’s role in social control and mass conditioning is crucial, of course. Historically it has proven impossible to hold a population subservient by force for ever, you can never have enough force to make them do what you want indefinitely. If you can make that population THINK what you want, however . . .

    It really is essential reading for reality/conspiracy theorists as it illuminates the mechanism and some of the proximal motives – wealth, power, control. For more in the way of ultimate causes, that’s a lot harder. Personally, “The Controversy of Zion” (you can torrent a pdf) explained a lot that was previously impenetrable. But ultimately, if you follow the rabbit far enough, one can’t avoid the spiritual aspect of the position we are in. Which ties in quite well with mystical insight from whatever age or culture and quantum insights like Campbell’s “My Big TOE”.

  143. @Wizard of Oz

    How on earth do you “know” what “people in the street” saw? You read it in the Commission’s report? Saw it on TV? Ha! There is evidence that very few individuals actually claim to have seen the impacts and try tracking one down now. Ripe for the “planting” of “testimony”.

    The videos can however be studied as evidence.

    You seem to have missed the point of the article you just read. One RRA invalidates the entire RR narrative. And with 911 there are numerous such. Tuneyloons doesn’t “need” to explain anything about “witnesses” when he is discussing the video evidence. You need to show why he has that wrong, if he has. As far as the Pentagon goes, I’d have to say that there is no actual evidence I’ve ever seen that a plane was involved. As for Manhattan the video evidence is hardly better than dubious in terms of the official conspiracy theory.

    You need to put up your own evidence, or at least a claim thereto, rather than reverting to the cheap rhetorical device you have used here in dismissing the comments about studying the videos. You even stooped to an ad hominem fallacy! Did you even read or understand this piece?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  144. @Rurik

    Pointless arguing with a HIQI, I’d say Rurik. You are in a fact-and-logic-free zone.

  145. @Biff

    That is a telling point Biff. I can’t recall seeing it before and I’ve always thought it surprising.

    After 14 years there has been no development in the official narrative. Nothing new has come to light, nothing uncovered by further research or investigation. No amendments or clarifications as would be expected in any complex matter over time.

    That fact alone is stunningly implausible.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  146. @alexander

    So how do you explain people of lower IQ that are also good but not “easily duped and defrauded”? Also people of high IQ and that are good but also not easily duped? Does the word “illogical” mean anything to you?

    Because you seem to be saying that if one is good then one is easily duped. Or are you trying to say that to be “good” one must be able to be easily duped and defrauded?

    For myself I will stick with the particular flavor of idiocy described in the article as a more plausible explanation, as a working hypothesis at least, especially as the ability to be duped seems to persist beyond the presentation of contradictory facts. Or are you saying that highly intelligent people are so good they are immune to reason? In other words, they are so smart, they are dumb! Albeit because of their goodness. But that sounds like . . .

    • Replies: @alexander
    , @Santoculto
  147. @Wizard of Oz

    And the opposite of a “Truther” is of course, you: A Liar.

  148. @Clearpoint

    I also appreciate the comparison to social dominance orientation by the 1st commenter. This broadens the great points the author has made with respect to the political dimension to every social institution. The small minority with the immense ambition for power and the work ethic to match their drive claw their way to the top of the hierarchy. I have met only one person in my life who falls in that category. The vast majority of high SDO scorers have much lower drive and work ethic, but seem to have very high desires for the leisure and comfort associated with their position in the hierarchy. Like a herd of cattle, they are easily moved and manipulated to defend the system that provides their leisure and comfort. No system has been more successful on the world stage than the American system. This supports Gore Vidal’s observation of “the United States of amnesia”, and the easily corrupted nature of politics in general. Many pearls of wisdom cover this unwillingness to remove the blinders — “Never bite the hand that feeds you” comes to mind. And so does “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” It’s not the few who sit at the top who are the problem, but the herd who sits below them in leisure and comfort. The Trump (and Sanders) phenomena is all about the growth of a portion of the herd who is no longer being fed, in the manner in which they were accustomed to, into a politically relevant force. For them, the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

  149. alexander says:
    @Camillus MacGillycuddy

    What I am suggesting, Camillus,

    Is that the parameters of own own moral conscience, do restrict our ability to see the deliberate evil behind events, when it strikes, not our intelligence.

    Consider your impression (as I consider mine) when the first airliner exploded into the twin tower on 9-11, could either of us ( or any of us) really imagine ourselves (or anyone)flying that plane, deliberately, into the building ?

    Could we ?

    Is it really a question of how intelligent we are…..that we can’t imagine it ?

    Isn’t the deliberate, and pre-planned nature of such an event, such as 9-11, what has so shocked us, and in fact, shocked the whole world ?

    We are shocked not because we are smart or stupid, we are shocked because it represents a breach in the fabric of our collective moral conscience.

    Our expectations of basic human decency, which binds us, is what is ruptured….not our(respective) levels of intelligence.

    Who , among us, could imagine such a thing ?

    Which curiously enough, Camillus, as I filter through all the events and narratives provided for us since that time, the one which seems most stubbornly, cloyingly resistant to debunking, no matter how many times, I try, in my mind, to rationally debunk it……

    Is the narrative of the five dancing Israelis.

    Who sets up a camera to record such a horrific and sinister attack………before the attack has occurred ?

    Who does a dance, a jig of celebration, after the planes have successfully struck their mark ?

    When the entire collective moral conscience of all humanity is beside itself in total shock and disbelief…what does it say about the celebratory nature of these few men, seemingly ecstatic in their recording of this heinous event ?

    What does it say, Camillus ?

    I am all ears ?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  150. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @alexander

    the event and narrative . . . which seems most stubbornly, cloyingly resistant to debunking, no matter how many times, I try, in my mind, to rationally debunk it……
    Is the narrative of the five dancing Israelis.
    Who sets up a camera to record such a horrific and sinister attack………before the attack has occurred ?
    Who does a dance, a jig of celebration, after the planes have successfully struck their mark ?
    When the entire collective moral conscience of all humanity is beside itself in total shock and disbelief…what does it say about the celebratory nature of these few men, seemingly ecstatic in their recording of this heinous event ?

    For many months, years even, I don’t think the “narrative of the five dancing Israelis” was widely known. In the sensory overload of events, of the image imprinted on our retinas of the smoking towers against a blue sky; of a man falling from the building; of the eerie skeleton of the towers after the smoke had cleared; of numbers tossed about — 50,000, 60,000 dead; of frantic phone calls to family who worked in the towers; of Rudy Giuliani emerging as the nation’s calming father-figure — the dancing Israelis got lost in that crowd.

    And for a long time I didn’t follow up on a lot of details.

    But one thing buried in the recesses of my brain nagged — what was that that someone said about “U.S. now must stand with Israel.”

    What did what happened in NYC have to do with Israel, I kept thinking.

    Eventually, I researched that nagging RRA: Who said it? Why?

    Ehud Barack said it.
    He said it even before the towers fell.

    THAT is when the entire construct of the world changed.
    That’s when the glasses went on.

    Ehud Barack: Architect of 9/11, by Christopher Bollyn

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  151. @Camillus MacGillycuddy

    We all have strengths and weaknesses, from the macro to the micro-features, for example, mathematics or be conscientious.

    There is a myth that the higher are the scores in IQ, more rational, wiser, more accurate will be the individuals. is a myth because we’re all stupid and smart, it depends on the cognitive function, for what, for whom …

    There is a clear correlation between high IQ and wisdom but this is likely to be unusually non-linear.

    This mythology between linearity between IQ and fundamental-intelligent behavior (long term and holistic) is largely responsible for this blind faith in the cognitive ”elites”.

    It’s not, to be, or not to be,

    ”to be smart OR not”

    is, ” we are and we are not, ” it depends on which perspective you’re looking.

    ”you’re amazing on maths but sucks in realist logics”

    It also depends on the social dynamics in which you are located and how holistically conscious you are about reality.

    Until recently, the opposition was left. They were more aware of the problems of society while nowadays, contextual opposition is right. The ”eternal” opposition is wise.

    There are minds that are much more prodigious to understand the reality than others, just as there are minds that are best to learn many languages.

  152. alexander says:

    Yeah…..Anonymous…….glasses on.

    I imagine there aren’t just a few out there….with glasses on….who aren’t locked and loaded too .

  153. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    In fact, the alleged hijackers at the flight school brought a lot of attention to themselves because they were such incredibly bad students. Now, let’s think, why were they such bad students?

    I think the main reason is that most of them did not really know English.

    Another point would be that learning to fly a 757-67 is a major undertaking. Those flight schools entailed small propeller planes, no relationship to jumbo-jets. Also, training requires reading comprehensive flight training manuals. Since their English was poor they would have needed manuals written in Arabic. So who provided the extensive training and Arab-language manuals? My guess would be that whoever flew the planes received prior training in Saudi Arabia since that’s where most of them were from.

  154. Rodger Ramjet Moment:

  155. Sean says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    As the sensible Alice might have observed would you really need to have seen a genuine beheading to know that one was fake which, say, purported to show Osama bin Laden sitting nearby with a 2016 copy of the Wall Street Journal in his hands…

    I most certainly would. To be able to say with any confidence that such a film showed a faked death by beheading, one would have to have seen a genuine beheading.

    For example, what does a . 357 magnum at point blank range do to a human head. We all have ideas based on movie special effects. Take a look at the real thing.

    A bit different that one might have thought, eh? You see the main thing warping our reality is not faked footage being passed off as real events, it is Hollywood product, which is presented as fiction.

    I an afraid mister Revusky left the matrix for Borges’s Circular Ruins, which ends thus:

    [...] In a birdless dawn the magician saw the concentric blaze close round the walls. For a moment, he thought of taking refuge in the river, but then he knew that death was coming to crown his old-age and absolve him of his labors. He walked into the shreds of flame. But they did not bite into his flesh, they caressed him and engulfed him without heat or combustion. With relief, with humiliation, with terror, he understood that he too was a mere appearance, dreamt by another.

  156. Much of the 9/11 truth debate centres around whether the fires that were burning in the buildings could have melted or weakened the supporting steel frame of the buildings sufficiently to cause a structural failure.

    While I have no comment on the overall narrative of the WTC attack, I get very annoyed when I read about the “steel frame” construction of the WTC towers. It’s basically a straw man. Unlike, say, the Empire State Building, the WTC 1 and 2 towers were NOT steel frame construction. They were steel FASCES construction. They were vertical steel columns stabilized laterally by comparatively weak floors binding the columns together. Think of a bunch of one meter high sticks of raw spaghetti, punching through 100 sheets of paper one cm apart. Load the top of this with a ten pound weight. Now take a pair of scissors and carefully cut through two or three adjacent paper floors. The columns now have no lateral support and they bow outward and the structure collapses. The impact and heat took out the floors, not the steel “frame”, i.e. the columns. This was documented in the architectural building failure analysis. Here’s WTC2 starting to collapse right at the point of the mechanical insult:

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @utu
  157. @Jonathan Revusky

    Anyway, one odd thing is that self-styled debunkers always throw around this “Occam’s razor’ concept, that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is likely the true one. (Except for when they don’t like the simple, obvious explanation.)

    Another point that needs to be made is that Occam’s razor was invented to explain natural phenomena, not human behavior. We may sometimes fail to figure nature out, yet that does not mean that nature consciously tries to deceive us. Human beings, of course, are another matter entirely. That’s why Occam’s razor is inadmissible in the study of ‘conspiracy theories’; it was simply never intended to handle them.

  158. @Sean

    To be able to say with any confidence that such a film showed a faked death by beheading, one would have to have seen a genuine beheading.

    If you want blood, you got it!

    Nicholas Berg was beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s group in Iraq in 2004. Look up Berg on Wikipedia if you’ve forgotten who that was. Here’s the video:

    Notice how they don’t pause the video before sawing off his head and cut directly to the post-decapitation scene, as in the ISIS videos. Notice also all the blood on the floor when they’re done. Carotid arterial bleeding makes a huge mess.

    I remember watching this for the first time about 11 years ago, and it made a big impression on me. That’s how I knew the ISIS videos were fishy when I first saw them.

    Even The Telegraph reported that video experts thought the executions were “staged”, though they were careful to add that they assumed the victim was later killed off camera.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/bill-gardner/11054488/Foley-murder-video-may-have-been-staged.html

    I guess we can take their word for it!

  159. Sticking strictly to the narcissism of minor difference (open invitation to all to upstage me by rendering that in the original German) I note that you wouldn’t need to have seen a real beheading to detect that my hypothetical video was fake because Osama would be shown as alive long after his death. Now if you are going to out quibble and out pedant me you can’t rest where you are but must come back with
    That could have been a genuine video got up to look fake by someone cooking up a fake 2016 copy of the WSJ… but how could the fake WSJ be shown with 2016 news…. well the whole fake fake might be done in 2016 but, setting that aside the actual content in the fake WSJ might be obscured in the video…

    Or…. I am running out of steam – maybe ObL was spliced into the video of a genuine beheading….

  160. @anonymous

    A quick reading of this suggests that you have given a pretty good innocent explanation for any verion of the “five dancing Israelis” story. It would hardly be Ehud Barak only amongst Israelis who immediately saw the implications of a major terrorist attack in the US by Arabs or Iranians as they would naturally have assumed to be responsible (unless they were in on a dark conspiracy in whuch case yhey would have been strictly circumspect). About 75 per cent would have seen it straightaway.

    I proffer for enlightening comparison what my first boss told me about two occasions in 1941 when he was travelling or working with people of importance to Australia’s part in WW2. In June when the German attack on the Soviet Union began someone said “We’ve won the war!”. On 7 December after the news of Pearl Harbour broke someone said to him “We’ve won the war!”.

    Forget those dancing Israelis. Absolutely without evidentiary weight.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @anonymous
  161. @Camillus MacGillycuddy

    Excuse me not finding time to engage with what seems to me insane rubbish but let me briefly offer the fact that when I was in New York in April 2002 for two weeks for reasons totally unrelated to geo-politics I spoke to at least five sophisticated educated people who had been looking at the Twin Towers when one or both of the aircraft flew into them. I prefer their evidence to that of loony theorizers.

  162. Rurik says:
    @Cloudswrest

    Think of a bunch of one meter high sticks of raw spaghetti,

    except in this case you can’t cut the “spaghetti” with scissors, you need thermite

    and even then it takes quite a bit to turn hundreds of thousands of tones of steel and concrete into so much powder and dust

    I guess it helps if you think of it all as paper and spaghetti .. or something

    • Replies: @anonymous
  163. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Great analysis!

    I wonder if HIQI is the best moniker, though. I don’t object to its pejorative dimension. It just seems to be less helpful than it might be.

    Idiocy seems to be something that may be permanent, while what ails HIQIs can be outgrown or dispelled by the right kind of LPM(s) for an individual HIQI.

    I was surprised to learn that I’m colorblind. But, armed with that fact, I’m able to cope, like anyone else. Viewing things under bright white lights or direct sunshine seem to help.

    Perhaps “cartoon blindness” is more helpful. HIQIs simply can’t see cartoons as well as high BDQ folks. When viewed in that way, HIQIs may be helped, by someone so inclined, by shining a “bright light” on the subject. Perhaps each HIQI would respond to the right kind of stimulus from high BDQ friends who know them well. Might be able to lead them to their own LPM.

    Thereafter, with the knowledge of their condition, recovering HIQIs can cope by recognizing that they need brighter light than is sometimes available…

  164. @Wizard of Oz

    “…but let me briefly offer the fact that when I was in New York in April 2002 for two weeks for reasons totally unrelated to geo-politics I spoke to at least five sophisticated educated people who had been looking at the Twin Towers when one or both of the aircraft flew into them. ”

    Let me try and guess the names of your five eyewitnesses: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, Pearl and Silverstein?

  165. utu says:
    @Cloudswrest

    Your “raw spaghetti” analogy (it’s hard to call it a model) does not account for the central columns and their orderly collapse. Besides there was WTC7. No raw spaghetti in WTC7. No planes either.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  166. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Forget those dancing Israelis. Absolutely without evidentiary weight.” – You are in a very deep denial.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  167. I attribute my rather high BDQ to Hamilton’s conclusion stated below. I make a terrible dupe – the type of person that has been slaughtered by the true believers throughout history.

    http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/MentalismCB.html

    W. D. Hamilton (1936-2000, the originator of modern, ‘selfish gene’ Darwinism) described himself as ‘almost idiot savant’ (Hamilton, 2001:xxvii) and rated himself ‘fairly good at woodwork as at other handicrafts’ to the extent of having carpentry as a ‘reserve life plan’ in case his theory proved unpublishable (Hamilton, 1996:26). Hamilton also conformed to the typical family of someone with autistic tendencies suggested above: his father was a well-known engineer (designer of the Callender-Hamilton bridge), and a geriatrician sister had engineering skills to the extent that she developed an improved pressure mattress for the treatment of bed sores (Bliss, 2001). Hamilton describes himself as possessing -

    notably a trait approaching to autism about what most regard as the higher attributes of our species … a person who … believes he understands the human species in many ways better than anyone and yet who manifestly doesn’t understand in any practical way how the human world works – neither how he himself fits in and nor, it seems, the conventions.

    He continues,

    It is known now how autists, for all that they cannot do in the way of human relationships, detect better out of confusing minimal sketches on paper the true, physical 3-D objects an artist worked from, than do ordinary un-handicapped socialites … so may some kinds of autists, unaffected by all the propaganda they have failed to hear, see further into the true shapes that underlie social phenomena. (Hamilton, 2001:xxvii-xxxi)

  168. vinteuil says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “when you are pointing to the wikipedia page on any of these events as proof of the official story, you are pointing to a summary of the official story as proof of the official story.”

    As usual, you make no attempt to understand before resorting to ridicule.

    I’m simply pointing out that before one starts questioning the “official story”, it’s best to know what it is.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  169. I think the focus on the towers has hurt the search for the truth concerning 9/11. It was an emotionally traumatizing event. The relationships and motivations of the US and its allies before and since are justification enough to realize we have been had. I don’t know who knew about the attacks nor if there were other methods employed to bring down the towers. No one does because the evidence was shipped to China right after the attacks without analysis. I don’t understand the fixation with the towers. The evidence which can be tested is gone. What we do have is the 28 pages. We know the CIA wanted to take Osama out before 9/11 and saw pre-9/11 radicalization of Muslims by Israel’s actions as a threat. We know Osama was not formerly charged with anything. You’d have to be a complete moron to not realize that the War on Terror is a fig leaf for the Empire of Chaos to do its thing which is to destroy.

    One does not need to believe in the JFK conspiracy theory to know that there some really bad people out there with power they should not have. If JFK lived these people would still be there and they would still be bad. One does not need to have a highly emotional fixation on his death to be wary of what was going on at that time.

  170. utu says:

    John Kerry Enlists 12 Hollywood Execs as Mockingbirds in Order to Sell the “War on ISIS™”: Wag the Dog or Team America World Police?

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/john-kerry-enlists-12-hollywood-execs-as-mockingbirds-in-order-to-sell-the-war-on-isis-wag-the-dog-or-team-america-world-police/

    “You don’t go to Hollywood to get “ideas” on how to fight “the narrative” of the fictional “ISIS™” that turns up in every country you want to bomb back into submission. Their “narrative” is too make fake beheading videos to make everyone hate them. Their “narrative” is to kill Muslims to make Muslims hate them. Their “narrative” is to say they rape women to make women hate them. Their “narrative” is to kill Japanese guys to make the Japanese hate them.”

    “Anyway, John Kerry didn’t go to Hollywood to get ideas on how to win the hearts and minds campaign against a hearts and minds campaign. He went there to get the Hollywood producers to produce more propaganda aimed at steering their audiences toward supporting the Never Ending Global War OF Terrorism Against Anyone Anywhere At Anytime if They Don’t Do What We Say i.e. ISIS™ .”

  171. vinteuil says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    OK, so it’s the Mossad, it’s Israel, it’s the Jews.

    Got it.

  172. MarkinLA says:
    @TuneyLoons

    Actually the physical entity that is important here is the kinetic energy of the aircraft hitting the building which is 1/2 M(V*V) since I can’t make a V squared with my keypad. The weight of the plane is supposedly 100 tons, which isn’t the mass but can be calculated by the weight since weight is the force generated by the mass and gravity.

    The kinetic energy of that mass has the ability to shear and deform and weaken the metal superstructure. In addition that kinetic energy is also converted to heat energy as it compresses the various metals slamming into each other in the same way that a solid non-explosive bullet creates molten metal as it blows through steel plates.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  173. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    as i recall the first two towers did not collapse, or pancake, into a heap. a skeletal framework remained erect for days, maybe weeks — my mother asked if i’d gone to see the wrecked buildings some time after the event. iirc crews including welders dismantled the skeleton and hauled it away.

    https://cryptome.org/info/ap-911/ap-911-pack.htm

    so the spaghetti and paper analogy has explanatory value.

    but none of that applys to Building 7.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  174. MarkinLA says:
    @utu

    But plenty of mass above the failure point. The orderly collapse (and it really wasn’t if you look at all the debris flowing sideways out as the top slams into the lower floors) is due to gravity wanting to pull everything straight down and that force far outweighs the sideways forces caused by the metal collapsing and twisting. Once that mass starts moving, the kinetic energy created by it starts to increase by the square of it’s velocity.

  175. @utu

    Apart from showing that you can deploy pop-psych cant rather rudely what about giving your intellect some real exercise and arguing why, if there were some young, almost certainly ex IDF Israelis high fiving when they had seen the planes hitting the Twin Towers, they weren’t just responding to one of them, for example, having an Ehud Barak moment and saying “it looks like the mad mullah who launched an attack on the WTC 7 years ago has got a smarter successor. You know what this means comrades: Uncle Sam at war in the Middle East!”

    BTW isn’t the quote attributed to Ehud Barak some evidence that the Israelis weren’t involved or was the old military man so loose tongued that he couldn’t help blurting out a damaging admission?

    Before you use such thought-replacement jargon as “in denial” again you might like to ask yourself whether you aren’t presuming that you know a lot more than you can know. In the ordinary case of, for example, “Mrs Bernie Madoff was in denial about having a smooth con man as a husband” it is pathetically naive to suppose that Mrs Bernie Madoff was frank about what she felt and knew. In the even less appropriate case of your current usage you simply have no reason at all to infer any emotion on my part about 9/11 or the arguments about it – although I will concede difficulty in resisting the emotion of contempt for truly bad or lazy arguments and emotional judgments on matters important enough to deserve analytical thinking.

    • Replies: @utu
  176. @anonymous

    “none of that applies to WYC 7″

    Quite. A fire was burning within it all day – even more reason to expect fatal weakening of the steel structures. And of course no one has given a plausible reason why any plotters – al Qaeda or CIA or FBI or Mossad – would want to add to the risk of discovery to bring down a building with no symbolic value.

  177. Truth says:

    Two question for all of the Truth “deniers”:

    Have there been any skyscrapers imploded since 9/11?

    Did the owners stick to the original, time consuming, and expensive process of rigging the building with explosives, or did they just cut a hole in the roof and have a helicopter haul hot jet fuel up to it, and dump it into the hole.

    You see, in the scientific community, when fortuitous mistakes are discovered, such as when the scientist working on microwave energy discovered that a candy bar in his pocket had melted, someone cashes in upon them.

    • Disagree: Andrew E. Mathis
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  178. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Criminal Andrew Mathis: is a stalking hasbara Jew, he has threatened physical violence against Revisionists, posts pictures, addresses, phone nos. of those he wants attacked. He has left threatening voicemail messages, on & on. All this illegal activity is documented by many, it’s ironclad.

    Such are those who fear free speech.

    Andrew Mathis also posts as ‘Thames Darwin’ and we see his recent illogical argument demolished utterly here:

    [MORE]

    ‘Is 1% too much to ask?’

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10206

    see previous beat downs:

    ‘Himmler’s note infers Hitler knew of liquidation?’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2143

    ‘Alleged “mass graves” according to T. Darwin / Andrew Mathis’

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9414

    ‘Andrew Mathis on Dachau, Majdanek, Auschwitz, Treblinka’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9228

    Anecdotal evidence & “holocaust survivors”

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9238

    holocaust’ denial article by Andrew Mathis debunked here’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2816

    ‘Prof. Mc Nally dissects HHP’s Andrew Mathis’ bogus article’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2841

    ‘Holo. Hist. Proj.’s Andrew Mathis on Zyklon scent removal’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2499

    ‘Green, Mathis refuted / cyanide: lice, humans, & more’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=267

    ‘Believer org. spokesman, Andrew Mathis, demolished in debate’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=254

    ‘Holo. Hist. Proj.’s Andrew Mathis attempts damage control’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2498

    ‘Email from Andrew Mathis (The Holocaust History Project)’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1526

    ‘holocaust’ History Project to unveil section on Treblinka’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=280

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  179. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    A quick reading of this suggests that you have given a pretty good innocent explanation for any verion of the “five dancing Israelis” story.

    don’t twist words. I paid no attention to the fdIs for years, maybe a decade. I don’t recall being aware of the story until relatively recently.

    re Ehud Barak — what was offensive was an Israeli linking the US tragedy to Israel. At the time that made no sense. At the time I had learned of the concept of zionism only a month or two earlier. Israel did not exist in my mental framework or knowledge base. At the time the series of hijackings and bombings were not connected to anything pertinent to my life. What was so stunning about Barak’s statements at BBC was the specificity of the program laid out, and the effrontery of an Israeli declaring a global war on terror that the U.S. would lead.

    At the time Iran had not been involved in so-called terror events in 15 years, according to this PBS listing: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

    This assessment of Barak’s BBC appearance argues that it was part of a ‘shock and awe’ scheme: http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/09/september-11-2001-zionist-shock-therapy-and-the-birth-of-the-lie/

    Finally, it’s noteworthy that Richard Perle and Barak participated in a follow-up conversation at BBC on Sept 11 2001 and recited very similar talking points. One might think they had coordinated their messages http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1544810.stm

    remember: at the time concepts like zionism, Israel lobby, Occupied Palestine, war on terror, Hezbollah, etc. operated only on the margins, to the extent they were relevant at all to me or, I daresay, to most Americans. As the second link explains, Barak used that stunned state immediately after a destabilizing event to introduce to the entire world the blueprint for the ensuing 15 years.

    >>>> “There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it.” – Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.

  180. @Seamus Padraig

    Another point that needs to be made is that Occam’s razor was invented to explain natural phenomena, not human behavior.

    No, it wasn’t. Nobody writing in this thread seems to have a frigging clue about what Ockham’s razor actually is. William of Ockham wanted to construct a theory of metaphysics that did away with the need to posit the existence of universals in the Divine mind. To that end, he insisted that the likenesses of individuals belonging to natural kinds result from similarities in their individual natures, and that the class or group to which they belonged was a construct of the intellect. Since (on Ockham’s view) metaphysics could do just as well without positing the existence of universals as it could by making use of them, he eliminated them from consideration by citing a generalized principle of economy: “Entities should not be multiplied without cause.” None of this had anything to do with what we nowadays would call “natural” (read: scientific, physical, material) phenomena.

    Thus Ockham, while he would have rejected the title, nonetheless became the father of a whole school of nominalist thought. He was also quite wrong concerning his “razor” and was eventually excommunicated by the pope. The fact that Ockham, for instance, seems to have no problem allowing the existence of universals within the human mind but somehow cannot fathom their existence in the Divine mind remains a genuine curiosity and a puzzle that defenders of Ockham will never successfully explain.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  181. @Truth

    Did the owners stick to the original, time consuming, and expensive process of rigging the building with explosives, or did they just cut a hole in the roof and have a helicopter haul hot jet fuel up to it, and dump it into the hole.

    Pouring jet fuel into a hole in the roof is not at all analogous to what happened on 9/11. What happened on 9/11 is that an extremely massive airliner smashed into the towers at several hundred miles per hour and then exploded—towers which, moreover, had all their supporting beams along the facade. This accomplished quite nicely exactly what controlled demolitions are supposed to accomplish, i.e. cutting enough supports that the building falls down under its own weight.

    Considering the extensive collateral damage that ensued from this uncontrolled demolition (the destruction of WTC 7 being a rather dramatic case in point) nobody in his right mind would propose this as an efficient means of clearing away undesirable buildings.

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @NoseytheDuke
  182. @vinteuil

    OK, so it’s the Mossad, it’s Israel, it’s the Jews.

    Got it.

    You didn’t confirm my assumption that you are French, but I guess you must be.

    It appears that you have very little understanding of your own country’s deep politics, and what the relevant power structures are currently. You really ought to get educated.

    Here is an interesting question: What political forces are behind the constant harassment, persecution really, of the comedian Dieudonné? What is going on there?

    I assume you are aware of that case. It’s an interesting case because it reveals the power of certain political factions in the French State.

  183. @MarkinLA

    The weight of the plane is supposedly 100 tons

    Yes, that is correct. Approximately anyway. You neglect to state the weight of the building.

    Approximately 500,000 tons. Of which about 100,000 tons is structural steel.

    So if a 100 ton plane can do this much damage to a 500,000 ton building, then let’s just imagine a small scale model of the plane that weights 100 grams.

    It hits a scale model of the building that weighs 500,000 grams, i.e 500 kilograms (half a ton) of which 100 kg is structural steel.

    100 gram model plane, a hollow aluminum tube, about the same weight as a cell phone. It hits 100 kg of structural steel. The 90,000 liters of jet fuel, BTW, is now 90 ml, a bit less than half a coffee cup.

    You think the 100 gram model plane hits the 500 kg model building and the model building does what we see in miniature?

    I looked back and your screen name is familiar to me. We had this debate before and I concluded something: you are absolutely, utterly, completely full of shit.

    Anyway, the above relative scale stuff is barely relevant anyway. You have to explain Building 7 and Building 7 was not hit by a plane. To believe that the perfect symmetrical implosion that has to be engineered and implemented by a team of specialists, can occur via uncontrolled fires is akin to believing that the faces carved into Mount Rushmore appeared there by random action of erosion by wind and rain.

    The perfect symmetrical collapse has to be engineered. To claim that it occurred by uncontrolled, unplanned fires, which is the NIST claim on building 7 is an imposture of such a scale that it has doubtless caused many a person to have an immediate LPM!

  184. @vinteuil

    “when you are pointing to the wikipedia page on any of these events as proof of the official story, you are pointing to a summary of the official story as proof of the official story.”

    As usual, you make no attempt to understand before resorting to ridicule.

    Understand WHAT???

    You’re taking a synopsis of the official story as proof of the official story. The U.S. government claims that they shot Bin Laden and threw him in the sea. If I ask for proof of this, you can point me to Wikipedia and, yes, the relevant Wikipedia page will say that they shot the guy and chucked him ub the sea. And they will have one or more footnotes that point to Western MSM sources that tell that story.

    This is not proof, Kermit! This is like going to some valley with an echo and shouting whatever assertion and then when what you shouted comes back echoed to you, saying that this is proof of whatever it is!

    I’m simply pointing out that before one starts questioning the “official story”, it’s best to know what it is.

    Excuse me, why do you think that I do not know what the official bullshit story is? How did you reach that conclusion, Kermit?

  185. @Wizard of Oz

    Excuse me not finding time to engage with what seems to me insane rubbish but let me briefly offer the fact that

    Isn’t a “fact” something that is independently verifiable, a statement that no reasonable person would care to dispute, like: “Paris is the capital of France.”

    Well, anyway it’s not the first time you use words in very strange ways. For example, for you a word like “credulous” is used to describe people who decline to believe in all the bullshit, as opposed to people who believe it.

    when I was in New York in April 2002 for two weeks for reasons totally unrelated to geo-politics I spoke to at least five sophisticated educated people who had been looking at the Twin Towers when one or both of the aircraft flew into them.

    I wonder… is this the first time you’ve told this particular lie? I was tempted to go back in the comment archive and find out, just out of curiosity, but it’s too much bother.

    Look, I know people have to make a living, I understand that… but I was wondering… do you actually derive pleasure out of this? When you tell a particularly baldfaced lie, do you get a tingle of naughty pleasure running down your spine?

    But really, what most people would like to know is: What’s the pay like?

  186. @Sean

    I most certainly would. To be able to say with any confidence that such a film showed a faked death by beheading, one would have to have seen a genuine beheading.

    So, apparently, you must think that if somebody had never seen a genuine lion before, they would not be able to discern that Simba and the other lions in the Disney cartoon Lion King are not real lions.

    • Replies: @Sean
  187. Truth says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I.D; This is just silly. I don’t know why I allow myself to be sucked into these ridiculous 9/11 “debates”, but it is incredibly pointless.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @vinteuil
  188. Rurik says:
    @Truth

    actually Truth he sort of does spell out what was done, even if unintentionally

    What happened on 9/11 … …accomplished quite nicely exactly what controlled demolitions are supposed to accomplish, … … as an efficient means of clearing away undesirable buildings.

    these boyz all knew the Trade Center was losing money, and the NY Port Authority had mandated that it have dangerous asbestos removed

    it’s estimated that the WTC had between 400 to 2000 tons of asbestos alone that would have cost up to a billion dollars to remove

    now compare that to just pouring some jet fuel down a hole (so to speak) and having all the buildings, (including all the dangerous, cancer causing asbestos) just turn to powder and be breathed up and cleansed inside the lungs of New Yorkers into pristine carbon dioxide exhaled breath. Such a deal!

    • Agree: Truth
  189. Sean says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I think unicorns exist, in the sense that there is one in The Last Unicorn. I don’t think the unicorn in The Last Unicorn is really an evil pony trying to fool the other characters in that story.

  190. @Camillus MacGillycuddy

    After 14 years there has been no development in the official narrative. Nothing new has come to light, nothing uncovered by further research or investigation.

    Yes, that is actually a very good point. To me, the canonical example would be the JFK hit. The president is shot, they nab this guy Oswald. He was just a lone nut. He did it. No conspiracy of any sort. They know what happened immediately and the official story never changes after that. (The patsy is conveniently dead, killed by a another lone nut who was not part of any conspiracy. If you can believe that!!)

    Same with 9/11. You have huge evidence (that I don’t even mention in the essay actually) of foreknowledge. Patterns of options trading in the days ahead of the attacks that indicate some people were trading on foreknowledge. Other people were warned not to visit New York.

    AND the dancing Israelis setting up the camera BEFORE the event. Obviously they have foreknowledge. No investigation of any of these leads.

    So there is a cover story ahead of time and that is the story within a day of the event and basically never changes.

    So, yes, good point. This is a basic element in terms of the pattern recognition I was referring to.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  191. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Good that you brought up Mrs Bernie Madoff. She was in denial of very Jewish kind. Her apartment was wired by FBI during the investigation when her husband was on bail. Now we know that she blamed anti-semites and anti-semitism for the misfortune that happened to her husband. Being caught was the misfortune. In many way Jews are just like blacks.

  192. @Jonathan Revusky

    The masses, tensile strengths, and elastic moduli of materials do not scale linearly with increases or decreases in their linear dimensions, as everybody with even a scintilla of scientific literacy knows. The kinetic energy of a falling mass increases quadratically with height, while the mass itself increases cubically with length, which means that a mass with double the linear dimensions of a test mass and lifted twice as far off the ground, will impact the ground with a quintic increase in kinetic energy, or a 5th-power relation. Even the simple geometrical concept of volume, which naturally varies with the cube of linear size, seems to have eluded your grasp. The chemical energy of the jet fuel that can be stored in a given volume will increase by the cube of that volume’s linear dimensions. Double the size of the tank and you get eight times the volume, which is eight times as much chemical energy when oxidized.

    Nothing whatsoever could make your scale model behave as the actual towers did, because the relevant scaling factors are not linear. However, just for argument’s sake, let’s turn the tables around on you. Go ahead and build your scale model. Take your best guess as to the amounts and locations of thermite and semtex that were used to demolish the towers, then build scale models of those and place them and detonate them accordingly. Are you going to get an implosion? No, you’re going to get nothing at all, because it’s not practically possible to detonate such a microscopic bit of plastic explosive nor to burn a few micrograms of thermite dust. The chemical reactions would not release enough energy to even chip the paint on your model.

    Your reasoning is simply absurd. This would not even be accepted at an elementary school science fair. And you think you’ve woken up? You think you’ve escaped the matrix? The fact of the matter is that not only are you in the matrix, you are the matrix. The font of unreality that bubbles forth from you is apparently enough to obscure any connection you might have with the sense-perceptible universe.

  193. @Intelligent Dasein

    Minor edit: The kinetic energy of a falling object with all linear dimensions scaled up would be a quartic relation—a 4th-power relation—not a quintic relation as I originally said. Gravitational potential energy equals mgh. For some reason I was thinking 1/2 mv^2. The point, however, remains the same.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  194. @Intelligent Dasein

    The masses, tensile strengths, and elastic moduli of materials do not scale linearly with increases or decreases in their linear dimensions, as everybody with even a scintilla of scientific literacy knows. The kinetic energy of a falling mass increases quadratically with height, while the mass itself increases cubically with length, which means that a mass with double the linear dimensions of a test mass and lifted twice as far off the ground, will impact the ground with a quintic increase in kinetic energy, or a 5th-power relation.

    Dude, you’re not talking to somebody with a low BDQ whom you can snow with all this hand-waving and willful obtuseness.

    You see, the point that MarkinLA was making, or trying to make, was that it was normal to think that the 100 ton plane would do a huge amount of damage slamming into the the building because a 100 ton object is such a HONKING BIG OBJECT. He tells you what the weight of the plane is but then DOES NOT TELL YOU THE WEIGHT OF THE BUILDING!

    500,000 tons

    Of which 100,000 tons is structural steel. So I provided the information he deliberately left out.

    As for scaling it down, I’m not seriously claiming that the physics is all exactly the same. I’m just trying to give people a sense of the relative scale of the objects by scaling down to something that corresponds to everyday objects in our world.

    Anyway, you are basically arguing that it makes sense to think that a 100 ton airplane can slam into a 500,000 ton building and cause the latter to disintegrate in short order (about an hour or so). Okay I know there is also 90,000 litres of jet fuel, which amounts to 180 ml of jet fuel for every ton of building. About a coffee cup of kerosene for every ton of the building. You don’t think there’s a bit of an energy deficit there?

    In any case, you are so far up bullshit creek without a paddle defending a WOP narrative. Because even if you can seriously make the case that a 500,000 ton building will basically disintegrate as a result of being hit by 100 ton plane, then…

    YOU STILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN BUILDING 7 WHICH WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE!

    Again, anybody who thinks that building 7 collapsed in a perfectly symmetrical way into its own footprint by uncontrolled, unplanned fires is obviously a complete fool or just lying!

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @NoseytheDuke
  195. @Intelligent Dasein

    Minor edit: The kinetic energy of a falling object with all linear dimensions scaled up would be a quartic relation—a 4th-power relation—not a quintic relation as I originally said. Gravitational potential energy equals mgh. For some reason I was thinking 1/2 mv^2. The point, however, remains the same.

    Well, all that still just begs the question: Why is the falling object falling in the first place? Why should a 500,000 ton building fall apart, basically disintegrate, as a consequence of being hit
    by a 100 ton airplane?

    Oh, and once you explain that, then explain building 7!

    I earlier wrote:

    Again, anybody who thinks that building 7 collapsed in a perfectly symmetrical way into its own footprint by uncontrolled, unplanned fires is obviously a complete fool or just lying!

    Actually, I misspoke there and was being a tad ungenerous. There is a third possibility besides someone being a fool or a liar when they claim that the perfectly symmetrical collapse of buiding 7 could occur from uncontrolled, unplanned fires.

    That is that they just never really thought about it very much. And that may be most people’s case.

    Once you do think about it, in light of the fact that this kind of straight-down implosion has to be engineered and implemented by a team of specialists, that this occurs without being carefully engineered is preposterous.

    It’s something like this. The team makes a study of the building, identifies the key points at which to place the explosive charges and the charges are placed and, finally they are set off in a sequence with split-second precision. The whole idea that all those key points in the steel frame structure of the building would fail in the appropriate sequence within, like, I think, a few hundred milliseconds of one another, as a consequence of uncontrolled, unplanned fires in a building — this is utterly preposterous.

    Properly understood, this is one of the greatest impostures imaginable. Once you understand that NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, put out a report on building 7 making this claim, that that is what happened — well, you should have your LPM right there!

    • Replies: @alexander
  196. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey JR,

    whom you can snow with all this hand-waving

    Reminds me of a quote from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, when the Boss put Merlin (that other wizard) in charge of the weather..

    “He poured out volumes of speech to match, and contorted his body and sawed the air with his hands in a most extraordinary way”.

    alas, it didn’t effect the weather at all

    a complete fool or just lying!

    I think you’re right that the HIQI aren’t the ones desperately trying to do damage control here. Rather it’s the shills. The liars.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  197. annamaria says:
    @vinteuil

    Please don’t be so liberal with the word “Jews.” It would be more appropriate to say “Ziocons.”

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/25/neocon-kagan-endorses-hillary-clinton/

  198. alexander says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    How right you are Mr Revusky.

    Properly understood, the deliberate collapsing of building number 7 is perhaps one of the supreme acts of fraud foisted on the American public, and perhaps the key that unlocks the titanic and heinous fraud of the entire 9-11 incident ….Who knows?

    I certainly engaged Rurik,(and he, I) for no uncertain amount of time, as to the amount of expertise and deliberation needed to make a building of that scale collapse so neatly within its own foot print.

    It is almost a fine art, to do it so precisely ….and quite easy to flub, even by top experts in the field.

    Rurik went so far as to send me footage of demolitions, planned for weeks in advance, to collapse perfectly straight down, that failed and fell sideways…even with the best and most deliberate intentions of the demolition experts assigned to the task.

    But that being the case, it is still not clear to me how many Americans actually know about number 7, or even recall it coming down?

    And then there is the issue of the parameters of our own moral consciences, Mr Revusky.

    How many of us still recoil in horror at the memory of the event…..let alone, allow ourselves the ability to reason through the possibility, that some among us, could have participated in such a thing.

    The shock to our collective moral integrity at the indignity of the suggestion is enough to turn many of us away in total disgust.

    Not so difficult to understand human nature…… now is it… Mr. Revusky ?

    Not so difficult to understand, at all.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  199. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    My own LPM came in 2005 when, after seeing many articles/statements on the internet that 9/11 was not what the government had told us it was, my own research led me to conclude beyond any doubt whatsoever that the ‘official story’ was a complete fantasy and that the events of that day had to have been an ‘inside job’ by somebody. It was not an easy thing for me, as I had grown up in a very conservative and strongly patriotic family, qualities that I carried with me up until that moment when I realized what a load of crap the official story was. It was nothing short of a complete and total change in World View.

    It is virtually impossible to discuss current national and world geopolitical events with someone who has not woken up to the truth about 9/11, and trying to do so is like banging your head against a wall. I have stopped trying, actually, although I will sometimes try to discuss my beliefs with those whom I judge to not be completely brainwashed by the government and msm.

    What is particularly frustrating is to see self proclaimed liberals who condemn with righteous anger what was done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere throughout the ME, and yet insist with equal righteousness that Libya and Syria are ‘different’ and in those countries we are actually ‘bringing them freedom’ and are on the side of the ‘good guys’. As I said, without understanding that there are levels of power far above the presidency and political parties that are not only responsible for 9/11 but other momentous world events of the last 50+ years, it is impossible to have any understanding of current foreign or economic events worldwide.

    Excellent article.

    Jeff

  200. @Intelligent Dasein

    Nonsense. WTC7 was not collateral damage from the collapse of WTC 1&2, it had small fires within as proven by pictures. The collapse is a perfect example of controlled demolition.

    The second plane to hit the towers hit the corner of the tower and much of the fuel was propelled by momentum outside the building where it very visibly burned. If the collapse had been due to the impact it would have toppled towards the corner that was struck. Simple physics.

    For the buildings to collapse as they did the steel supports would need to be heated to the same degree throughout the entire building and all at the exact same time. Hold a piece of wire in a flame and notice that only the part in the flame gets very hot. Note also that the steel supports were coated in asbestos to prevent fire damage.

    Take a close look at the collapse of the buildings and observe the explosive charges bursting out in several places, all the way down. Many, many witnesses including firefighters described explosions taking place within the buildings immediately prior to the collapse.

    I try to explain why seemingly intelligent people cannot grasp this and the best I can come up with is they are lacking in logic and reasoning or are traitorous.

  201. @Jonathan Revusky

    I have read that some of the keys to understanding these events are..

    Who had the power to pull back the existing levels of security?
    Who had the power to immediately place the false narrative into the media and keep it there.
    Who could suppress the truthful narrative whilst continuing with the false one?
    Who had the power to control the investigation and subsequent cover-up?

    It might have been The Last Investigation re JFK.

    Cheers

  202. @Jonathan Revusky

    Furthermore, the architects and engineers who designed the WTC stated that it was designed to withstand and absorb impacts from a Boeing 707 which is 50% heavier and carried 50% more fuel.

  203. vinteuil says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    “…you think you’ve woken up? You think you’ve escaped the matrix? The fact of the matter is that not only are you in the matrix, you are the matrix.”

    This.

  204. vinteuil says:
    @Truth

    “I don’t know why I allow myself to be sucked into these ridiculous 9/11 ‘debates’, but it is incredibly pointless.”

    Yes, Truth. In your case, at least, it is, indeed, incredibly pointless.

  205. geokat62 says:

    YOU STILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN BUILDING 7 WHICH WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE!

    This documentary tries to do just that:

    The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower

    “The Conspiracy Files delves into the final mystery of 9/11: a third tower at the World Trade Centre, which along with the Twin Towers, also collapsed that day. But this skyscraper was never hit by a plane.

    The 47-storey tower collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers and it has become the subject of heated speculation and a host of conspiracy theories which suggest it was brought down by a controlled demolition.

    Nearly seven years on, the final official report on the World Trade Centre is due to be published in July.

    Official investigators are expected to conclude that fire caused the collapse of this third tower at the World Trade Centre. But that makes this the first and only skyscraper in the world to collapse solely due to fire.

    The Conspiracy Files explores many unanswered questions to try to find out what really happened, and why some people think there was a sinister plot to destroy the building.”

    http://youtu.be/vZbMfTtHkYM

    • Replies: @Kiza
  206. Kiza says:
    @geokat62

    Why is everybody getting so worked up about Building 7? It was just a day when the buildings kept falling down like London Bridge in the children’s song. It was raining buildings and remote controlled passenger planes on that late summer’s day. T’was a day of magic of symmetry in downward motion, a day to suspend all knowledge of physics and beliefs in logic. But many people died and it is not a joking matter. And somebody did this well organized horrific show and got away with it.

    Hello Jonathan, these are very nicely developed ideas. I had some similar ideas and concepts and I fully support your essay. I will add a few points if I find a bit of time because I happen to be busy right now. Best wishes and respect, greetings from your “Illiterate are not those who cannot read then all those who believe everything they read (and see)” friend.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @geokat62
    , @alexander
  207. Sean says:
    @Kiza

    I can read something and find it interesting without having to dogmatically agree or disagree with the whole thing based on particular points. Jonathan Revusky, all very rational in his arguments, seems, to be thinking in the style of Richard H. Popkin, (a noted authority on philosophy) who wrote “The Second Oswald“. But Popkin chose the ground of his battle. Revulsky is applying his methodology and conclusion of fakery to case after apparently unrelated case, which retroactively diminishes his credibility as the instances mount up; does he not realise that he is espousing Pyrrhic rather than Pyrrhonian Scepticism ?

    While interesting to see this “look Ma no hands” stuff done, it soon palls unless the person has some interest in and of them self. Revulsky is as far as I know, not Jeremy Sagan, said to have heterodox ideas about 9/11, and interesting to me because as the child of Lynn Magulis and Carl Sagan. I would ask that Revulsky at least pick a specific instance of fakery as the topic of each post, and steadfastly keep to that particular case in the comments.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  208. geokat62 says:
    @Kiza

    Why is everybody getting so worked up about Building 7?

    Here’s an excerpt from POPULAR MECHANICS Special Report, Debunking the 9/11 Myths, published in the March 2005 issue of the magazine:

    From the moment the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

    Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase “World Trade Center conspiracy” and you’ll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

    Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

    To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

    In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

  209. alexander says:
    @Kiza

    Kiza,

    “but many people died and its not a joking matter…..”

    Absolutely right..Innocent people were being burned alive…trapped in flames, suffocating…or leaping to their deaths.

    Horrible.

    It was an almost surreal experience to witness it on TV…I remember thinking to myself “what the heck is going on???…..Can this be “actually” happening ?

    it wasn’t just me, I think the entire world was in total shock and disbelief…..total shock…and utterly beside ourselves at the un-real nature of this tragedy.

    Except maybe…..

    Those five dancing….. Israelis….

    who seemed to be slapping high fives, at the time, in utter jubilation..”Hee -hee, Ya-hoo, Yessss… baby.”..

    and dancing their little happy jigs..”ah-hun,… ah-hun….ah-hun,ah-hun,ah-hun”

    and backslapping each other in triumphant….what ?……. congratulations ? ! ?

    Very strange behavior thinking back on it….

    Very strange…

    Don’t you think so , Kiza ?

    • Replies: @Kiza
  210. @Sean

    Revulsky is applying his methodology and conclusion of fakery to case after apparently unrelated case,

    Sean, these various Deep State operations are not “unrelated”. As for just sticking to one of them, it would seem that you think that it would be unscientific and illegitimate to try to say something general about a forest. Presumably one should just choose one specific tree and limit oneself to studying that.

    But Sean, let’s step back from all of this a second and consider what is going on. I wrote quite an unconventionally long article, over 9000 (!) words. And you are tacitly admitting that you don’t have anything logical or factual to sink your teeth into. You, on the other had, have written comparatively little but I can already point out major league logical fallacies in what you have written. For example, you stated that you would have had to have seen a real beheading in order to judge that any of these fake beheading videos are fake. I answered by asking you whether you would need to have seen a real lion to know that the lions in Lion King are not real lions. Of course, you did not answer.

    Not to rub this into your face or anything…. (oh, perish the thought!)… but this looks like total ignominious surrender to me.

    • Replies: @Sean
  211. @Rurik

    Hi, Rurik. Thanks for your kind words about my article.

    I think you’re right that the HIQI aren’t the ones desperately trying to do damage control here. Rather it’s the shills. The liars.

    Yes, of course! This guy MarkinLA trying to tell us how huge the plane is, weighs 100 tons. A whole 100 tons! And then he doesn’t tell you the weight of the building! 500,000 tons. Would anybody honest behave like that? And this Geokat critter, linking this stale 10-year-old bullshit from BBC and Popular Mechanics. As if it’s really so damned informative that the MSM backs the official bullshit story! (News flash! Dog bits man!)

    In your first comment on this page, you wrote:

    There surly are HIQI a plenty, but then I think you left out another significant group who might just show up here, and they are ‘the shills’

    I didn’t get around to responding to that but, yeah, of course, that is an aspect of things that I didn’t address in the essay. Basically, I kind of tacitly assume that all the people are more or less honest. Of course, that ain’t so! The problem is that it’s often hard to tell the difference between the honest HIQI and the dishonest shills. There is also, as Ronald Thomas West alluded to, this whole left gatekeeper, controlled opposition, sort of phenomenon. A lot of those people will tell the truth about aspects of things, but then will totally blow smoke when you hit deep events like 9/11 and the rest of the false flag terrorism.

    Actually, in earlier drafts of the essay, I had written some stuff about this, but I couldn’t really develop it satisfactorily, at least without adding a lot more text. Finally, felt that I had reached (or really passed) the limit of the reasonable in terms of the length of the essay. Actually, here is some text on that topic from an earlier draft that I later axed:

    I am conscious that one great simplification that I have made in all the foregoing is that I have tacitly assumed that the people who professes to believe in all the various RRN’s (Roger Rabbit Narratives) really cannot see through them — i.e. that their BDQ really is that low. In many cases, that is true, but there are other cases where it gradually dawns on one that there is more than meets the eye.

    Now, of course we know that a broad variety of situations exist in which people will feign lower intelligence than what they actually possess. One example that comes to mind is that of a woman who is married to a man much less intelligent than she is. In order not to embarrass her husband, she may well pretend that her IQ is far lower than it really is. Or a similar situation occurs when an employee has a boss far less intelligent than he is. Again, it makes perfect sense, practically, for a person in this situation to pretend that the contrary is the case, that his boss is far more clever than he is.

    So, it stands to reason that if it frequently makes sense for someone to pretend that his IQ is lower than it really is, it can also make sense to feign a low BDQ. In fact, I tend to think the latter is far more common than the former. Though modern western civilization has a rational/scientific veneer, I myself have begun to wonder whether there has ever existed a society in which bullshit is more pervasive and all-encompassing. Just consider how many careers in academia in academia and journalism reside on a foundation of pure, unadulterated bullshit. Political correctness comes to mind but it is dwarfed by the hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars spent on a “War on Terror” which is based on Roger Rabbit narratives. In such a society, of course many people pretend to believe the bullshit.

    This is hardly a new concept. One of the classic stories in universal literature is precisely about this issue: the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. I guess a modern-day Hans Christian Andersen would have written the story as Mr. Jenner’s New Gender Identity. Rather than pretend to believe that the emperor is not naked, the courtiers would pretend to believe that Bruce Jenner is now a woman named Caitlyn and a naive young boy would shout: “But that’s a man!” The universal lesson of the story would be unchanged: people will go along with the bullshit rather than risk their position in society.

    So when you live in a society that is so utterly suffused with and drenched in bullshit, it can be difficult to distinguish between those who really believe all the bullshit from those who are just pretending to believe it. For example, I myself do not have the slightest idea how many of the regular columnists who write op-Eds in the New York Times really believe their own bullshit.

    Some of the commenters on this and other forums who decry “conspiracy theories” are genuine low BDQ people, HIQI’s (or possibly LIQI’s). Others, I am quite sure, are professional disinformation agents. I don’t know of any perfectly reliable way of distinguishing the shills from the honest participants. Obviously, one’s approach differs with people depending on whether one things they are honest fools are are just playing the fool.

    • Replies: @alexander
    , @Rurik
  212. Rurik says:
    @alexander

    Hey Alexander,

    And then there is the issue of the parameters of our own moral consciences,

    they were counting on that

    it’s the same phenomena Hitler mentioned when he explained the ‘big lie’

    “All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

    — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]

    It took me a long time for the evil of this colossal crime to sink in. And I’d already been a practicing cynic, savvy to the demonic nature of our overlords. But even for me, it was a huge leap. They count on that, and I suspect it is people’s simple and ‘good’ natures that prevents them from accepting the enormity of that crime even today, when the evidence that it was a false flag is overwhelming.

    • Replies: @alexander
  213. alexander says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    It seems, Mr Revusky, that if you stop to consider there are actually “professional disinformation agents” getting paid to “bullshit” people…and muddy the waters on threads like this one…that, in itself, says something.

    I wonder if they are paid on a sliding scale…or whether there is some kind of ranking ?

    Perhaps there is a small army out there somewhere…. replete with….. a Lt.Colonel.Bullshitter…a Captain bullshitter….a Sergeant bullshitter…and a whole bunch of Private First Class bullshitters.

    Maybe they have a…. “Bullshit Boot Camp” somewhere, too….where young talents in bullshit are trained to hone their craft ?

    It certainly is worth hazarding a guess they do.

    But the idea there are in fact “professional bullshitters” out there, says something about the importance of the bullshit service they are providing to whomever is willing to pay them, to hide the truth.

  214. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey JR,

    The problem is that it’s often hard to tell the difference between the honest HIQI and the dishonest shills.

    ain’t that the truth

    And this Geokat critter, linking this stale 10-year-old bullshit from BBC and Popular Mechanics.

    you know I skipped right over that. I was assuming that Geo had sort of come around, and was only pointing out how pathetic the attempts of the gate keepers to keep a lid on the story was. Perhaps y0u’re right and he’s still in the dark.

    Since our raucous exchange with Sam and Geo and RTW, I’ve become convinced that Geo is of goodwill, (RT too) if on occasion misled (or misguided). This I’m assuming is one of those occasions.

    Perhaps Geo would like to clarify his position on this critical issue of our time. .. This singular crime that launched all these terrible wars, and has led and will lead to an Orwellian nightmare, unless we can wake people up in time.

    again, JR, kudos for your efforts

    • Replies: @geokat62
  215. alexander says:
    @Rurik

    I think its a “huge leap” for any of us, Rurik.

    but I think mostly because we could never imagine doing it ourselves.

    You are right, about” the big lie”in Mein Kampf….. but its kinda sad to think it could ever happen here…to us.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  216. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Perhaps Geo would like to clarify his position on this critical issue of our time. ..

    After viewing the BBC documentary about Building 7 and the article in POPULAR MECHANICS that addresses 16 of the most prevalent claims made against the official narrative, rather than ridiculing it as “stale 10-year-old bullshit,” I found the testimony of key eyewitnesses and that of the technical experts to be very convincing, as I think most who are willing to the view the documentary and read the article would agree.

    As I’ve stated in previous comments, however, the role the Israelis played leading up to, during, and immediately following the events on 9/11 needs to be investigated, as part of a wider, more comprehensive investigation led by an independent 3rd party, to determine those responsible for the events on 9/11.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  217. @Wally

    Please allow me either to respond to this asshole in kind or delete his slanderous posts.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  218. Sean says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Nothing you hace said is is logically impossible. But that does not mean it’s probable you are right in every case. Some may indeed have been fake. I’m sure some were not what they seemed (like the Tonkin Gulf incident) and too convenient for a careful investigation. But you’re saying all were fantasmagorica of the same actual entity. This is too tidy a solution and it comes across as rather lazy when you agree with so many commenters about incidents. Skull and Bones / the military-industrial complex / Deep state are not ten feet tall you know. The 30′s US Deep State did not intend to get into another war with Germany, lose eastern Europe than China to communism and then endure \ grueling stalemate war in Korea and a lost Vietnam, but it did.

    You see, the red pill is basically a sort of deus ex machina. The character takes the pill and voilà! If you think about it, it’s understandable that they introduce such a plot device. That way, the film avoids having to explain how the characters came to perceive the Matrix. Actually I can’t even imagine offhand how the movie would go about explaining that, but if it did, it would end up being a very different sort of film, much more complex and psychological. Too intellectual. It would bore most people. This way, the character wakes up without taking too much time away that could be better used in slick martial arts scenes, which are, after all, what most moviegoers want to see.

    Of course “much more complex and psychological” would be no more true to life. “Never think in a book: here are Truth and all the other capital letters; but think in a theatre and watch the audience. Here is the reality, here are human animals. Listen to the words of heroism and then look at the crowded husbands who applaud. All philosophies are subordinate to this.” (TE Hulme).

    Yes Jonathan, “slick martial arts scenes…are what most moviegoers want to see”. I am glad you mentioned that because it is a very good instance of how entertainment warps the perception of reality. Everyone had seen for themselves in countless movies and tv shows how a hero with some martial arts could high kick the strongest bad guy into unconsciousness . Even martial arts people began to believe this but then came the reality check of the first open no rules Ultimate fighting contest, which showed, as onlooker Jim Brown said “Fighting isn’t what we thought it was”.

    What happened was the Enter the Dragon style flashy martial arts experts were completely unable to defend themselves against brawny wrestlers. There was an effective kick to the head, when someone was on the ground. The shock winner was an exponent of Brazilian JuiJitsu (really a form of grappling) and the lightest man in the competition; a giant Boa Constrictor who choked out everyone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuzImQo7cdg). People were shocked at what really worked because they wanted to believe in the entertainment which caters to their appetites. Which brings me to the Matrix and They Live, plus The X files , Soylent Green, The Hunger Games, JFK , The Parallax View….Winter Kills, oh see for yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy-thriller_films_and_television_series).

    See, there is a lot of them, because people like conspiracy stories as entertainment and as I said in previous comments, even though presented as fiction they warp the viewers reality with successful high level conspiracies, like stuntmen pretend to be beaten by the martial arts striking actor hero in films, or Mission Impossible.

    In the same way that martial arts get dragged down into a wrestling match in real life fights with hulking thugs in real life , “they” or the deep state “it” are fallible and don’t find so easy to control radical nationalism in foreign countries . Perhaps you think some NWO masterminds intended all the aforementioned and their purport is beyond my understanding. Or maybe the Matrix is much more than an analogy to you. Some people, such as the magician in Borge’s strory, think like that:-

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle In his analysis of the spectacular society, Debord notes that quality of life is impoverished,[6] with such lack of authenticity, human perceptions are affected, and there’s also a degradation of knowledge, with the hindering of critical thought.[7] Debord analyzes the use of knowledge to assuage reality: the spectacle obfuscates the past, imploding it with the future into an undifferentiated mass, a type of never-ending present; in this way the spectacle prevents individuals from realizing that the society of spectacle is only a moment in history, one that can be overturned through revolution.[8][9]
    Debord’s aim and proposal is “to wake up the spectator who has been drugged by spectacular images,” “through radical action in the form of the construction of situations,” “situations that bring a revolutionary reordering of life, politics, and art”. In the situationist view, situations are actively created moments, characterized by “a sense of self-consciousness of existence within a particular environment or ambience”.[10]

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  219. @alexander

    You are right, about” the big lie”in Mein Kampf….. but its kinda sad to think it could ever happen here…to us.

    The implication is that you, alexander (and most others here) maintain as axiomatic that “Hitler lied … Hitler practiced the Big Lie.”

    Run that axiom through the paces Ravusky has staked out:

    What did Hitler lie about?

    How about other significant personages in that era — did any of them lie?

    Franklin Delano Roosevelt — liar or honest statesman?

    Churchill — liar or honest statesman?

    Henry Morgenthau Jr – liar or honest statesman?

    Rabbi Stephen Wise — liar or honest leader from the religious community?

    In all cases, be specific.

    Here are a few resources from the Housekeeper’s pov, to assist toward your LPM. Think of them as Housekeeping Hints from Heloise –

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-politics-of-art/

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/ministry-of-illusion-film-in-the-third-reich/

    http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/book-discussion-jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?71501-1/jewish-philosophy-politics

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitler-Beyond-Tyranny-R-H-S-Stolfi/dp/1616144742

  220. alexander says:

    Excuse me, S2H ?

    If there was a huge catalytic “lie” just prior to the dawn of Nazi Germany, it was the false attribution of the horrific terrorist attack, the burning of the Reichstag…to a kooky dutch communist.

    I am sure all the German people were as shocked and terrorized at that event, as we were during 9-11.

    Wouldn’t you agree ?

    Similarly, the rapid implementation of the “Reichstag Fire Decree”, a new set of laws, giving extensive and intrusive powers to the government while suspending a large number of civil rights to Germany’s citizens, paved the way toward the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and the rise of the police state under Hitlers dictatorship.

    Looking back, it seems a large number of historians, regarded the Burning of the Reichstag, as a staged event, utilized by Hitler and the Nazi party to consolidate their Power, and give birth to the Third Reich…a new era in which these ultra- militarized, supremacist “ubermenchen” would conquer the world…and control it…… for a thousand years.

    Do you see it differently, S2H ?

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  221. Kiza says:
    @alexander

    Do not get me wrong, but the dancing Israelis is only circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence yet that the Israelis did 911. This is why now everything which does not fit into the official “terrorist” narrative can be called a conspiracy theory.

    I need no architects or engineers to tell me that what I saw happen on the TV screen has not been described and explained correctly.

    But there is one old approach which always applies to all false-flags, namely cui bono, and this points to Israel.

    What I am more surprised about are the US denialists, resisting a re-examination of the official narrative. I just cannot see why an ordinary US person would resist looking at 911 from many alternative angles. But I could understand why Hasbara would resist any straying off the official story.

    What I do not understand is their plan in the long term – how long can the ban on re-examination survive? As long as the control over the MSM? Eventually, all these questions will become mainstream, and the current official story will become just an old paint job.

  222. utu says:

    Yes it is circumstantial evidence but their celebration implies… happy that they pulled it off, happy that they will benefit from it… Schadenfreude (do they hate America?). Statements by Ehud Barak in London and by Nut&Yahoo in Israel indicate instant awareness of ramifications and benefits. This is enough to be convicted in Roman court. Cui prodest scelus, is fecit

  223. @alexander

    You raise two issues:
    1. the nature and impact of the Reichstag fire
    2. whether the rule of Hitler and NSDAP was “totalitarian”

    re #1., alexander wrote:

    If there was a huge catalytic “lie” just prior to the dawn of Nazi Germany, it was the false attribution of the horrific terrorist attack, the burning of the Reichstag…to a kooky dutch communist.
    I am sure all the German people were as shocked and terrorized at that event, as we were during 9-11.

    This strikes me as overwrought.
    A building burned.
    To the best of my knowledge no one died (except for van der Lubbe who was found guilty by a German Imperial High Court and beheaded).

    It was quite an event and it was used opportunistically to garner powers to wage a campaign against Communists in Germany, but in my opinion it was not a necessary event for the German people to acquiesce to the NSDAP taking measures to eradicate Communism from Germany.

    Germany had been plagued with Bolshevik Communist incursions, mob attacks, riots and extensive civil unrest; many German civilians died in street fighting incited by Communists. The German people wanted an end to it, and NSDAP took measures to carry out that wish.

    The Reichstag fire was in a different category from Pearl Harbor (and as John Dower as well as many neocons have stated, 9/11 was a Pearl Harbor event, thus Revusky’s LPM and associated notions apply).
    One very important difference is that the U.S. knowingly and deliberately engaged in provocations of the Japanese with the intention of entangling them in a war. John Bradley, author of the highly regarded Flags of Our Fathers followed up with a scathing indictment of
    U. S. policy toward Asia in Imperial Cruise. From the time of McKinley, through Teddy Roosevelt and certainly in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, American leadership and elites believed implacably that U.S.A. had the right to rule the world.

    Germany, on the other hand, was in a defensive posture at the time of the Reichstag fire: Germany was weak, demoralized, impoverished, and enduring an invasion of Russians and Polish, Jews as well as Communists intent on subverting Germany society, culture, politics, and finance. This is an undeniable fact.

    Listen (from the 36 minute mark) to this exchange between Jeffrey Herf who is discussing his book, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda . . . http://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/book-discussion-jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda
    (The man in the red shirt is a hero — he recognizes the context of Germany post-war and attempts to put the glasses on Herf. Herf resists.) Herf concedes that

    “The anger about the post-war period–and I don’t want to get into the substance of those details at the moment – everything that you mentioned would be a rationale for persecuting the Jews, for driving them out of the universities, denying them citizenship, driving them out of Germany, passing the Nuremberg race laws, uh, treating them horribly in every way.”

    Herf acknowledges that Germany was in turmoil; that Jews played a part in causing that turmoil; and that NSDAP attempted to correct that state of turmoil.

    re #2., that the Reichstag fire was a “terror” event leading to “totalitarianisation” of Germany.

    Do you see it differently, S2H ?

    Yes alexander, I do see it differently.

    I perceive Hitler and NSDAP as a Tyrant – Dictatorship in the classic mold of Machiavelli’s reforming Prince, but not as a totalitarian government as the propagandists have framed it.

    I think Hitler and NSDAP were intent on reforming their political, economic and cultural life; ejecting invading and subversive elements; and intent on doing so by means as nonviolent and legalistic as was feasible.

    Chapter VII of The Prince describes the process by which Cesare Borgia revitalized Romagna, a city that had lost its virtu and descended into chaos, using initially brutal, then stern discipline to simultaneously engender fear/respect and then gain the support of the people, in order to restore in them their sense of community character and civic cohesion.

    An essential element to the successful rule of the Prince was to gain the support of the people — in Machiavelli’s view, that was the ultimate source of power and authority. Wealth did not buy authority, in Machiavelli’s view. Hitler had acknowledge rhetorical gifts and understood the usefulness of drama and spectacle to achieve communal cohesion.

    I submit that Hitler and NSDAP followed that pattern — for example, Rhom’s Freikorps was used, initially, to deal with ruffians who were causing street riots, violence and deaths that were, indeed, terrorizing the German people, just as Borgia used Orca to clean out offensive elements in Romagna. Once Romagna was restored to order, Orca was dispatched with extreme prejudice, just as Rohm and his followers were killed once they had accomplished their mission. Men who have been so desensitized toward other humans as Orca was posed a danger to society and had to be removed.
    (Do you imagine for a moment that the USA does not engage in similar Cesare Borgia-like tactics while working with, say, Afghan tribesman or Iraqi or Syrian militias?)

    It should also be emphasized that between a time shortly after his ascent to power in Jan. 1933, and the (false flag) events of November 1938, NSDAP quelled violence against Jews, and no Jews were sent to concentration camps during that 5 year period.

    During that same time frame, the German government and populace rebalanced their economy and achieved full employment; they were encouraged to travel abroad annually; they expanded housing for workers and improved and expanded infrastructure, adding many miles to the autobahn; they organized and hosted a world Olympics. Are these achievements, which FDR’s new dealers imitated, your idea of “totalitarian terror”?

    (n.b. Are you aware that Churchill deliberately bombed Berlin, repeatedly, in an attempt to provoke the Germans to attack Britain, and that Roosevelt carried on a similar campaign of naval attacks calculated to provoke the Germans?
    Would you call those acts “catalytic lies” and “acts of terror” leading to “totalitarianisation” of Britain and USA?
    Are you also aware that from the time Churchill came to power in 1940, until the end of the war when British voters repudiated Churchillian government, there were no elections in Britain? Totalitarian?? )

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  224. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Please allow me either to respond to this asshole in kind or delete his slanderous posts.

    Andrew, to be clear, just in case that is addressed to me, I have no admin power to delete anybody’s posts. Maybe regular contributors have that, but this is a guest submission, and I don’t have any sort of account that would give me the power to delete anything.

    So, by the same token, I can’t prevent you from responding to him either, if you want. That said, my preference would be that the comments be related somewhat to the article I wrote. That is, I think, the point of the comments section that follows an article, no?

  225. @Kiza

    Do not get me wrong, but the dancing Israelis is only circumstantial evidence

    It strikes me as pretty strong evidence of foreknowledge. So what are the scenarios in which Mossad has foreknowledge to have their people there with cameras set up before the event?

    Here is a question to ponder… if you just immediately assumed that any false flag terrorist attack in which Muslims are framed is a Mossad operation, how often would you end up being wrong?

  226. bigal says:
    @utu

    This Rove quote is great… and very, very true. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

    As long as the cabal continues to control the international banking system (fed reserve, bank of china, bank of france, bank of england, etc.) – they will continue to wield the incredible power of inflation to buy anything and anyone they want. As we red pill slaves focus on 9/11, sandy hook and the cabals other notorious false flags they continue to hire the most talented individuals the slave class have to offer to continue to execute their master plan.

    Like a school of fish – as we react to one thing, they will dodge and parry to another direction. Like the agents in the Matrix.

    Even if 35-50% of the slaves woke up tomorrow it really wouldn’t matter.

    The elite are the actors of history. In the past, the red pill eating slaves would have had our heads on pikes on the london bridge. Now that the media is so directly controlled, one slaves voice really doesn’t matter. Not even 10,000 slaves voice matters.

    In addition, the slaves never had it so good. The elite ARE sharing the wealth. Most slaves have (GMO poison) food to eat, a cheap house, free vaccines (to kill their children’s minds) and low interest rates on their foreign made car. It is just what used to be a million dollars is now worth 10,000. Inflation. That is the magic that pays for all the chaos.

    Until the slaves wrestle control of the inflation machine – we will be powerless to stop it.

    And that is why when Trump talks about auditing the fed, he is speaking a dangerous game. And even if they audit the fed – you would still need to audit the bank of china, bank of england, bank of japan etc. etc. at the same time. And who would the auditors be? Deloitte?! hah hah!!!

    In my experience, the elite allow us slaves room to make changes to the system just like Neo at the end of the matrix. You need to understand how to matrix operates. Only then do you have an opportunity to hijack it and use it for your own purposes – FOR GOOD.

    The whole war machine/police state use of the matrix is just old school sink for the inflation cash. There are entire new industries being set up that use the inflation cash for good purposes.

  227. Sam Shama says:

    Hi Jonathan:

    I had for the past month or two abstained from commenting in (or leafing through) UR for various reasons, relenting finally in this case of your most well considered piece. I must say that upon reading your article I chuckled a fair bit, for I was quickly reminded of my own condition from amongst the few categories you coined.

    For what its worth, I now know that the San Bernadino massacre was a revolting (which one isn’t?) psy-op.

    I have been attempting to garner the time required to carefully go through the circumstances surrounding the WTC incident, and as it occasionally happens, certain personal miseries have a way of clarifying one’s convictions:

    (1) Building 7 was a controlled demolition, all other explanations are ludicrous.

    (2) Very likely something exploded in the upper reaches of the towers initially (may or may not have been aircraft), started the fires, but were nowhere near in energy generating capacity to bring the buildings down. Those buildings were later on brought down by controlled demolition for which they must have been previously wired and prepared, with the inevitable conclusion that at least the demolition preparation was planned, and a set of persons were involved in the conspiracy. Silverstein not the least of them, although the most financially conspicuous beneficiary.

    (3) Thermite and all that, I really cannot reach a defendable conclusion about.

    (4) Dancing Israelis, I don’t wish to dismiss (and not for obvious reasons to appear impartial) seems to me mostly hearsay and shaky circumstantial evidence. Those fellows, if indeed they were set up for filming, had at least some manner of foreknowledge, but why they would be filming, and how their presumable handlers benefit from such a film, escapes me.

    (5) Most troubling, indeed desolating for me, was the suffering caused to those three thousand souls, whose lives were wrenched away; the enormity of this crime, committed by the presumed cast of characters reaching the highest levels of government is a matter that gives me some pause; were these people entirely confident that their crimes would forever elude the light of discovery? For one would surmise that even a small shred of doubt in this regard, ought to have conjured a spectre of the gallows, rank or nobility notwithstanding. Then again, I suppose, we should never dismiss the public’s capacity for ennui and credulity.

  228. @Sean

    But you’re saying all were fantasmagorica of the same actual entity.

    I never said that.

    I was inviting people to think about the similarities in many of these things, but that doesn’t mean they are all the work of the same people or entity. I said, look at the similarity between the war mongering propaganda of the British in 1914 (bayoneting Belgian babies) and the war mongering propaganda of the U.S. in 1990 (throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators). I’m obviously not saying that the same people or even institutions were behind the propaganda in the two cases. That would be crazy. There’s 76 years between the two things!

    Or I could say, look at the similarity between the Reichstag fire in 1933 and attacks of 9/11 in 2001. Obviously I’m not saying that the same people or even the same political forces are behind both events!

    Or the way Lee Harvey Oswald was framed and the way Muslim patsies are framed for things 50 years later. It’s not the same exact people doing these things either. I’m saying to look at the patterns though.

    You still don’t get it?

    The idea you have put out, that you are not supposed to study all these things as a whole and see the patterns, but study one event in isolation — this precisely helps explain why your BDQ is in fact so pathetically low! It perfectly illustrates some of the points I was making in the article!

    • Replies: @Sean
  229. @Intelligent Dasein

    No, it wasn’t. Nobody writing in this thread seems to have a frigging clue about what Ockham’s razor actually is. William of Ockham wanted to construct a theory of metaphysics that did away with the need to posit the existence of universals in the Divine mind. blah blah blah

    But we do all know what pedantry is!

  230. @Seamus Padraig

    Another point that needs to be made is that Occam’s razor was invented to explain natural phenomena, not human behavior. We may sometimes fail to figure nature out, yet that does not mean that nature consciously tries to deceive us. Human beings, of course, are another matter entirely. That’s why Occam’s razor is inadmissible in the study of ‘conspiracy theories’; it was simply never intended to handle them.

    The point you make is an interesting one, that human conspirators are attempting to deceive us and nature is not. (Though, nature is not trying to make itself easy for us to understand either. Actually, natural phenomena just exist and are completely indifferent as to whether we humans understand them or not, no?) But yes, I agree that nature is not consciously trying to mess with our minds the way people behind a psy-op are.

    Still, I think that Occam’s razor is of some limited use because it makes sense to examine the simpler theory before you examine more complex ones. Yes, the conspirators want to deceive us, but there are still basic logical issues that push any real-world conspiracy towards a simpler plan as opposed to a more complex one. This is because a simpler plan should have fewer points of failure, and thus, is more likely to actually work, no?

    So, it seems to be of some value. Also, it makes more sense to examine the simpler theory first maybe in the same way it makes sense to pick the low-hanging fruit first….

    I think, though, that when Occam’s razor totally gets abused is when you have explanation A and B and one explanation is simpler blah blah, except all that goes out the window if the simpler explanation defies the laws of physics! I mean, if you have two competing explanations, they both have to be physically possible (not involve pigs flying) to even begin to talk about Occam’s proverbial shaving kit, no?

    Anyway, in the article, I have not connected every last dot in some very fastidious manner. So, for example, I point out the building 7 WOP narrative, that there is simply no way that the NIST report on building 7 could be true, because even if you accepted, for the sake of argument that the fires heated the steel support enough to cause it to fail, the failure would never be perfectly symmetrical. (Even if the pig had wings, it still would not fly.)

    But what I don’t bother to say is that, if one of the three buildings that collapsed was pre-wired for a controlled demolition, then it stands to reason that ALL THREE WERE! Also,more broadly speaking, it stands to reason that if the authorities are telling such a blatant lie about the collapse of building 7, they are almost certainly telling massive lies about most everything else that happened that day. I leave all that as an exercise to the reader.

    But on the Occam’s razor thing, I suspect that if we just banned the term, it would be no great loss…. It’s a very misused cliché at this point.

    • Replies: @utu
  231. @SolontoCroesus

    edit: should be Röhm not Rhom.

    addendum: Boyd Cathey’s 2014 essay, Perpetual War for Unobtainable Peace Buchanan, Churchill and the “Necessary” Book

    and 15 years earlier, Buchanan commenting on his own book — the one that Cathey reviews — An Unnecessary War?

    reflect the work of two public intellectuals who have put the glasses on.

    Jonathan Revusky frames his programme for achieving awareness of reality around events of 9/11 and may well consider extending his theories to the early 20th century era of the “European civil war(s)” to be treading on dangerous ice. I get that. I think he’s Russian, and Russia’s role in the Great Wars is complicated: Based on my understandings of , i.e. Crime and Punishment and Anna Karenina the idea of Russia that Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy probe are as divorced from Bolshevism as George Washington’s Farewell Address. is from PNAC doctrine. It’s my back-of-the-envelope assessment that Stalinist Russia was a totally different creature from the Russia that Putin is trying to revitalize, but Putin may not — must not — speak derisively of the Great Patriotic War or he’d lose the Russian people. Furthermore, why insert oneself between that juiciest of Targets, Hitler-Germany, and the zionist propaganda machine?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  232. @geokat62

    I found the testimony of key eyewitnesses and that of the technical experts to be very convincing, as I think most who are willing to the view the documentary and read the article would agree.

    Well, that is clearly not the case. The Popular Mechanics article was later expanded into a stand-alone book.

    http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/1588165477

    The book currently has 87 customer reviews. 47 of those reviews give the book the lowest possible rating of 1 star out of 5. (Probably most of those people, if they could have given the book zero stars would have!)

    So your assertion that most of the people who read the book (or article) would agree with it — that is pretty demonstrably, objectively false.

    Also, I do not know whether you are aware that David Ray Griffin wrote a book specifically to debunk the Popular Mechanics drivel:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156656686X

    David Ray Griffin’s book that refutes Popular Mechanics currently has 123 customer reviews on Amazon, of which 91 give the book the highest possible rating of 5 stars out of 5.

    It is also reasonable to infer that, since David Ray Griffin’s book was explicitly a refutation of the Popular Mechanics material, that many of the people who bought DRG’s book had previously read the Popular Mechanics article, if not the book. So it appears that a clear majority of people in this sample, when exposed to the arguments of PM and those of DRG, opt for those of DRG.

    Hardly surprising, since the PM material is defending a WOP narrative, tantamount to trying to tell you that pigs can fly.

  233. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I do not like this talk about the Occam’s razor. It’s waste of time because it is just a rhetorical device and it has no real epistemological value.

  234. geokat62 says:

    Since you decided to address your last comment to me, let me remind you where we left off the last time we were discussing this topic. Due to your insistence on using foul language to “win” the debate, I challenged you to accept the following Rules of Engagement I put forward:

    1. Each party is responsible for refraining from making any ad hominem attacks.

    2. If even one ad hominem attack is made in a particular post, the offended party should respond to the offending party by duly noting it and terminate any further engagement.

    3. By making an ad hominem attack in their post, the offending party is effectively declaring defeat.

    But for some mysterious reason you never accepted. btw – the offer still stands.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  235. Sean says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    My point was made a little tangentially perhaps . What i was getting at by mentioning fantasy (Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll and The Circular Ruins by Jorge Luis Borges) was that unless we have a real world case that everyone agrees was a conspiracy as a reference point, there is no way to tell whether you are right or lost in dreams.

    What you were pointing us to was fictional conspiracies from tv/movies. The Reichstag fire is progress but the key fact about it is that while the World at the time was certain the Nazi’s faked it, most historians, though firmly anti Nazi, now think it was actually done by the Communist who the Nazis convicted, and him alone. Proven big conspiracies to massacre or assassinate are thin on the ground. I am not saying things like that are not toyed with as options by the gov when they are desperate, but they don’t go through with them very often apparently. Probably because they’re scared of getting caught.

    Do you think Karl Rove has the balls for something like that? No one below such a level would be a viable conspirator. Don’t forget that the military has a chain of command and so does any intelligence service; the people who would have to be used (Delta Force or the CIA special operations division) are going to ask a few questions if they are asked to stick their neck out like a giraffe by doing such things. The CIA operatives are professionals with pensions you know .

    Oswald was an unstable fellow. In the Marines he was disciplined for having an illegal Derringer and pouring a beer over a NCO’s head. JFK was a Hawk who was determined to fight and win wars against communism whatever the cost. Oswald was seen taking a long parcel to work with him that day. Anyway, having been in the USSR as a honoured guest of the Soviet state he might have been seen as a rather dangerous choice to be framed for clipping the pres on his lunch break.

  236. One last word I guess. What to do about it?

    1. Release the 28 pages that Congress is hiding. (Saudi financiers)
    2. Release the Pentagon camera footage the Government is hiding.
    3. A real investigation backed by subpoenas and expert witnesses.
    4. I’d like to see the Minneta testimony cleared up. It’s still a mystery.

    People can argue the about the specifics all they want but we Truthers are willing to at least look at the problem and deal with it honestly. The non-Truthers just can’t go there.

    There was a second hearing after the Warren Commission in the JFK affair. It found that Oswald likely did not act alone. America used to have hearings to clear the air in these sorts of matters. That is how the nations purges itself and cleans the air. I guess the last one was Iran-Contra.

    Time to start cleaning up our country. It’s the only one we’ve got.

    • Replies: @alexander
  237. @geokat62

    Since you decided to address your last comment to me, let me remind you where we left off the last time we were discussing this topic.

    TRANSLATION OF SHILL-SPEAK: Since I have no response to the points you made, I’m going to dredge up stuff that happened months ago and hope that nobody notices that I cannot respond to your points.

    Due to your insistence on using foul language to “win” the debate, I challenged you to accept the following Rules of Engagement I put forward:

    TRANSLATION OF SHILL-SPEAK: Shit, this Revusky guy wrote over 9000 words and I’ve gone over it with a fine tooth comb and I can’t sink my teeth into any of it, logically or factually. I’d better try to veer the discussion into what a bad guy Revusky is.

    1. Each party is responsible for refraining from making any ad hominem attacks.

    Look, all of this is ludicrous because you clearly don’t really even understand what the term ad hominem means. It means when you attack somebody personally rather than address their arguments. What has happened between us is that you are demonstrably dishonest and I point out how dishonest you are. That is not an “ad hominem”.

    I outlined this whole state of affairs here, just in case anybody is interested:

    http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/mantra-for-911/#comment-1135150

  238. geokat62 says:

    Shit, this Revusky guy wrote over 9000 words and I’ve gone over it with a fine tooth comb and I can’t sink my teeth into any of it, logically or factually. I’d better try to veer the discussion into what a bad guy Revusky is.

    All you have to do is simply accept the proposed RofE and we can get into it, “logically or factually.” For your information, I’ve been doing a bit of research on this topic in the hopes you would take up my offer!

    But, alas,… TRANSLATION OF REVUSKY-SPEAK: “I still refuse to accept your proposed RoE”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  239. Rurik says:

    Gentlemen..

    Please

    I believe that you’re both men of good will. And that as often happens (just as it did between Geo and myself) that because there are so many trolls and liars and shills on the Internet slithering around issues such as this one, that we’re often on hair trigger alert to such rattle snakes lurking under the surface. As we should be.

    But in this case, I’m convinced that we’re all interested in getting at the truth. I would plead with you all to set aside any past invective and just take a look at the one question of building seven. That is the point of contention, after all. Whether or not such a building could have disintegrated the way it did because of office fires and vibrations.

    I have experience with structural steel and concrete as a general contractor of sorts and also hands on experience with metallurgy and construction materials in general, and so when I watch building seven plop, I know from what I’m seeing that it didn’t happen because of the office fires, but in the past, I’ve been dismissive of those who are not as easily convinced, (I believe because they have understandable reservations about believing that our own government had something to do with it), and also because they believe such a collapse is possible without the necessity of a professional controlled demolition being executed. Even Popular Mechanics and NIST said so!

    So those two (compromised) institutions of our society notwithstanding, it behooves us to make the case to those for whom such a leap is (understandably) difficult.

    Most of my siblings and extended members of my family do not accept that 911 was a false flag. Most of my professional colleagues are angry at the suggestion. It is entirely possible for people of good will to refuse to accept such a monstrous crime was committed by the very people trusted and charged and paid and empowered to protect the American people from harm. That these very same people would commit such an heinous act of betrayal and murder is a bridge too far. The foundations of their world would collapse beneath their feet.

    I know people for whom just the suggestion that Obama is less than a god walking the earth is heresy. They’re not bad people, just blurry-eyed liberals with a messianic fixation. Much like so many Christian’s I know feel about Bush the lessor or even Israel. They are unable to even ‘go there’, as it would collapse and implode their whole world view. And that is often what I find with the people who can not entertain the possibility that George Bush allowed this to happen for cynical reasons of political expedience.

    I think this whole resistance is very much what you were trying to address with this excellent piece JR. So we should consider Geo and as a treasured case of the people who have not yet had their LPM.

    Geo seems to me to be interested in the truth, and willing to accept it once the evidence is overwhelming, even if it is inconvenient. If we can reach Geo, perhaps we can reach others similarly troubled by the implications that such a LPM obviously are wrought with.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  240. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    I believe that you’re both men of good will.

    Rurik, if you truly believe this is the case, then why not encourage the other party to accept the proposed RofE, which are designed to prevent him from resorting to ad hominem attacks?

    A good example is his most recent comment:

    Look, all of this is ludicrous because you clearly don’t really even understand what the term ad hominem means. It means when you attack somebody personally rather than address their arguments. What has happened between us is that you are demonstrably dishonest and I point out how dishonest you are. That is not an “ad hominem”.

    And, in the same breath, he has the gall to suggest I don’t even understand the meaning of the term! So calling someone a “liar” is not attacking somebody personally, it is addressing their arguments?

    Let him accept the RofE and we can embark on our journey of truth… wherever it may lead.

  241. Rurik says:

    well Geo I can’t speak for JR, but I personally don’t like any kind of straight jacket on my debating style. Once I was even called Rurik~ the Intemperate for my resorts to wrath when confronted by less than honorable tactics. So I’d just leave it at trying to set the tone, and if someone is being hostile for no apparent reason, then it tends to work in your favor, as flinging invective is usually counterproductive.

    We’re trying to win people over with cogent analysis and logic, because we value the truth and want others to see it, so that we don’t all drown in a sea of mendacity and lies and the Orwellian dystopia they have planned for us all. The agents of treachery have had their way the whole 20th century, and now they want this one too. We should not allow that to happen, so spreading the truth is it’s own reward.

    (wish I had more time for a more well-thought out response but I have to run)

    • Replies: @geokat62
  242. alexander says:
    @Kiza

    No worries about that, Kiza.

    I don’t particularly care who that those “high-fiving,” back slapping” “”crash- filming- before- it – happened”” dudes were….its just whoever they were deserve a very,very long hard look…..and also that they turned out to be Israeli, Kiza.

    Not Afghani…… not Iraqi,…. not Syrian….not Iranian……not Libyan…not Palestinian…..not Yemeni….

    They were Israeli.

    I never WANTED them to be Israeli ( Hell No)…….But they were.

    Just the facts, Kiza.

    You mentioned also that there is no hard evidence linking them to this heinous crime.

    OK.

    But show me the hard evidence linking “anyone” to this heinous crime ?

    When questioned by a reporter as to why Osama Bin Laden”s attack on the WTC wasn’t listed on his international terrorist dossier, the FBI responded they actually had no evidence linking him to the 9-11 attacks.

    And yes, as far as I was concerned..whomsoever my government informed me ,were the perps…were the perps.

    It was only after the heaving tonnage of fraudulent Neocon “pretexts” for starting a war of aggression against Iraq, came collapsing down…..did I realize that my government was handing me a lot of bullsh#t.

    If they were “heaping it on” to, actually, start a criminal war of aggression……..

    then who am I to say “they weren’t heaping it on” when it came to the identity of the perpetrators of 9-11. ?

    Who are any of us to say ?

    The mysterious passport found in near perfect condition at the crash site ? .the passenger manifest ?…Hmmm…..Why isn’t that evidence just as fraudulent as the “Niger Yellow Cake”…..or the “aluminum tubes”…or Saddam’s Anthrax in Tom Brokaw’s office ?

    Why isn’t it, Kiza ?

    The Neocons obviously felt quite comfortable bullsh#ting us about the impending imminent threat of Iraqi WMD’s raining down on all our major cities….
    I remember it clear as a bell……and I believed it too….all the way.

    Well, if they were falling all over themselves to lie us into committing the supreme international crime…initiating a war of aggression…..then what weren’t they lying to us about the perps of 9-11.. or anything else for that matter….Kiza ?

    The only concrete evidence I know of….. anywhere……is what comes from witnesses who had no skin in the game……like the lady who witnessed those dancing Israelis…

    She saw what she saw….and she said what she saw.

    Does it mean they were the perps of 9-11?..I don’t know…..That is up to the FBI to decide after a thorough, non- fraudulent investigation.

    It certainly doesn’t mean that they weren’t….Does it, Kiza ?

    But if you are wondering whether or not the FBI will ever actually do a copious investigation of the dancing Israelis…or the Saudi’s for that matter ?

    Sure they will..

    One day.

    I am sure it will all come out in sixty years time..or long after the world has put it far back in their rear view mirror.

    Way far back.

  243. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    It’s fairly well known that paper and documents often survive fires intense enough to carbonise human bodies. Passports, especially their covers, are fairly solid documents that can stand quite a bit of rough handling and may be still readable after being near a major fire.

  244. alexander says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    Sean,

    I am all too aware of the mysterious, post 9-11, “revisionism” of the Nazi’s staged terror attack on Germany’s Reichstag.

    I started watching the softening and altering of the narrative…about 12 years ago.

    I call it “appropriate (terror)revisionism”.

    Isn’t it par for the course, Sean, that in order to stem the tide of a possible “false flag ” investigation of 9-11….the “precedent setting” Reichstag “false flag attack” had to be unwound…or at least…called into question, too?

    To be honest, Sean, it wasn’t hard to see this sort of revisionism coming around the bend….

    In fact, watching it flowering only IGNITES the potential “false flag “criminality of 9-11,( in the minds of free thinking men),…it doesn’t extinguish it.

    If the Reichstag fire…was, somehow, no longer a Nazi “false flag terror ” event…then certainly it is harder to make noise about the fact it may have served as a template for the Neocons 9-11 “false flag terror” event.

    No ?

    How fascinating to watch those in power…actively erasing history’s evils…in order to disguise their own.

  245. alexander says:
    @alexander

    Excuse me, Silverlock,

    I was actually responding to Sean in his comment, just before yours….comment # 244…

    Not your comment #245.

    Sorry, must have goofed that somehow.

  246. @alexander

    David Irving was able to view in Moscow some previously unavailable pages from Goebbels’s diaries.
    Here’s what Irving said about what Goebbels wrote re the Reichstag “terror — evil — false flag terror event” that the always-entertaining and creative, in a hyperventilating sort of way, alexander has formed such a dead-certain opinion about (based on 12 years of rumination but not on evidence):

    I read for the first time Goebbels’ hand-written entry about the Reichstag fire. As he described it, he was at his home with Hitler on that evening of February 27, 1933, when the phone rang at nine o’clock. It was the prankster “Putzi” Hanfstaengl, saying: “The Reichstag’s on fire.”
    Goebbels remembered that he’d been had twice by Hanfstaengl already that week, and he thought this was another prank, so he just put the phone down.
    Hanfstaengl phoned again and said, “You’d better listen to what I’m saying, The Reichstag’s on fire.”
    Goebbels realized this could be serious after all, so he made a phone call to the police station at the Brandenburg Gate, which confirmed that the Reichstag was on fire. Thereupon he and Hitler jumped into a car and drove straight to the Reichstag where they found their worst fears confirmed.
    This is in the hand-written diary, it is obviously genuine, and it confirms what we know from other sources.

    No one should expect alexander to place any stock in Irving’s research, nor to understand the importance of the identity of the initial informant regarding the Reichstag fire, “Putzi” Hanfstaengl. To do so would bend alexander’s worldview beyond the limits of alexander’s brittle and atrophied imagination.

    But the facts are that Putzi Hanfstaengl was related to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt family and carried on an active correspondence with FDR. Hanfstaengl was among the first to provide both financial and personally/political support to Hitler as the National Socialist movement was gathering steam.

    If one did press the boundaries of cognitive dissonance and posit just for a moment that Hanfstaengl might have been a handler, working on behalf of FDR to manage the asset Hitler; that the agenda was to encourage Hitler to wage war against Bolsheviks — consistent with Wilson’s war against Bolsheviks, and actually, consistent with the urgent recommendations of Herbert Hoover.

    Hitler did not want war. FDR needed to push Hitler and the German people over the edge to rouse them to wage war on Stalin.

    Roosevelt, of course, played a double or even triple game: at the same time that he was using Hanfstaengl to manage Hitler, he — rather, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., FDR’s Secretary of Treasury, was funneling money and materiel to Stalin to ensure that that the Red Army would be capable of destroying Hitler.

    In other words, it was FDR’s plan to destroy both Germany and Russia: FDR financed Hitler to destroy Russia while simultaneously financing Stalin to destroy Germany (but Stalin outfoxed, or outlived, FDR, hence the destruction of Poland and 50 yrs of Cold War) — something like the way USA is arming Israel and the Saudis to destroy ISIS, while simultaneously financing and arming ISIS to destroy Syria and Iran. In this way, the USA would control the MacKinder Island that Russia represented, and the industrial might and talent that Germany had on offer. (The propaganda films that Frank Capra produced offer a tell that Roosevelt and his Jewish friends coveted control of the Heartland:

    in the second in the seven-part series Capra’s narrator — well, just listen for yourself: “Germans have quested for world conquest for the last 75 years … Hitler is Genghis Khan . . . Germany has always sought to control the whole world, to impose their rule on the entire world … Germany seeks to control the wealth and manpower of the entire world … see esp. ~6 minutes — “the World Island” — Hitler lusted to control it, per Capra. Aren’t you the one whose forever bloviating about lebensraum?

    Crank that through your “precedent-setting Nazi terror false flag event” propaganda-regurgitating cement block of a wrong-headed conclusion, al.

    When you’ve crapped that brick, take a run at Kristallnacht.

    False flag?

    cui bono?

    Irving has some things to report from Goebbels’ diary on that score as well.
    It’s here, if you’re interested. But be prepared to crap another brick.

    • Replies: @alexander
  247. alexander says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Hi Anymouses,

    Is this the same Mr. David Irving who was found guilty of forging documents relating to a libel suit referencing his alleged Holocaust denial ?

    Or is it a different Mr Irving you have referenced in your comment ?

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @Rurik
  248. @alexander

    David Irving lost the libel suit he brought against Deborah Lipstadt, whom he accused of slandering him by calling him a holocaust denier and antisemite.

    to the best of my knowledge no forgery was involved, and Irving has not lost cases in which he was accused of forgery. Rather, Irving has provided evidence proving that other documents were forgeries; specifically, iirc, he proved conclusively that a set of diaries alleged to have been Hitler’s or Himmler’s or somebody’s, were not.

    Having brushed aside that bit of crumbs, what is your assessment of the evidence Irving presented from his research in the Moscow archives and the Goebbels diaries regarding the Reichstag fire and the German reaction to the Jewish assassination of the German diplomat?

  249. Rurik says:
    @alexander

    the same Mr. David Irving who was found guilty of forging documents relating to a libel suit referencing his alleged Holocaust denial ?

    Hey Alexander,

    I don’t think he was found guilty of forging anything, just that he was unable to prove that he wasn’t a “Holocaust denier”. It seems that he considered the pejorative to be unfair and dishonest because he never actually denied that the Holocaust happened, just that he had issues with the numbers cited and some of the specifics like the use of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. Also of note is that a lot of people threw a lot of money into that trial. I think Stephen Spielberg shoveled in a million or so, and I suspect the judge was loath to take on that lot.

    The salient thing to come out of it is that you don’t have to say ‘the Holocaust never happened’ to be called and officially labeled a “Holocaust denier”, just that you don’t agree with some specific tenet of the narrative; like that the Germans used homicidal gas chambers in a deliberate campaign to exterminate six million Jews and virtually every last Jew they could get their hands on, as a “final solution” to the Jewish question. Question even one tenet, and you go to jail in Europe and many other countries. Even things that are universally considered blood libels, like the lampshades and soap are considered verboten to mention in Germany and elsewhere.

    As for the Reichstag Fire, Irving seems to consider the matter murky at best. I suspect we’ll never know if it was Nazis who did it or someone else. Nevertheless, it remains a story of a false flag operation in the consciousness of most people who’ve even heard of it. (very few ; )

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @alexander
  250. Steel vs. Aluminum

    • Replies: @TuneyLoons
  251. alexander says:
    @Rurik

    Hey Rurik,

    No worries.

    I am not in the business of assessing the bonafide’s of authors like Mr Irving.

    I am interested in taking a good hard look at how the “terror attack” on the Reichstag acted as a catalyst in transforming Germany’s Weimar Republic from a liberal democracy into a fascist, militarist dictatorship.

    I am interested in examining the emergency laws enacted, as a response to the terror (the Reichstag Fire Decree ) and assessing how civil society, and the powers granted to the government were transformed, as a result of them.

    I am interested in how the Nazi party skillfully utilized this “event” to stage a coup and consolidate its power.

    I am interested in how privacy rights were suspended then, and why,….. how the Gestapo came into being,…….and how the state became the arbiter not only of the peoples civil rights but (just about ) everything, and how it stole that power from “the people” through the new “terror” laws..

    I am interested in the massive military build up that occurred in Germany…..after the attack.

    I am interested in how they disseminated state propaganda through the media…and how journalism (as well as radio broadcasts) became “unthinking” tools of Nazi indoctrination and the Nazi agenda.

    I am trying , in a somewhat disinterested fashion, to assess the parallels…..(the similarities and differences) between how Germany was “transformed” by the burning of the Reichstag…and how we were “transformed” by 9-11.

    Just for fun, Rurik, hold a copy of “The Reichstag Fire Decree” in your left hand and a copy of “The Patriot Act” , in your right.

    Look ‘em both over.

    It seems to me, with a few minor variations , they are not only similar, but that entire sections of The Patriot Act seem to be lifted , whole cloth, from “The Fire Decree.”

    I am trying to weigh the argument that strongly confers on”The Reichstag Fire Decree” the distinction of being the initial phase in changing Germany’s laws and transforming the country into a totalitarian police state.

    It is certainly common knowledge ( no matter how many revisionists there are) that Germany became a military dictatorship……

    I am suggesting the catalyst for this transformation was The Reichstag Terror …this event gave birth to the New Germany and the rise of the Nazi’s….much in the same way our 9-11 Terror gave birth to the New American Century…and the rise of the Neocons.

    Was one a “template” for the other, Rurik ?

    Considering the uncanny parallels….I wonder sometimes…Don’t you ?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  252. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    alexander the cheese grater –

    here’s what life was like in Germany during that glorious Weimar Republic . . . liberal democracy

    Germany, 1923 — the Weimar era:

    “On Nov. 5 the price of a two-kilo loaf of bread had soared from 20 billion marks to 140 billion, sparking off nationwide riots. In Berlin, thousands of men and women had paraded the streets, shouting “Bread and work!” Over a thousand shops — bakeries, butchers, and even clothing stores–had been looted. . . . cars were held up and their occupants robbed. In the heavily Jewish areas . . .anyone who was known to be Jewish, or “looked Jewish” had been attacked by gangs of young hoodlums. *** The worst violence was directed at Galician Jews, many of whom had their distinctive beards scissored off or their clothes ripped away. The Borse, the stock exchange, had come under siege by a mob shouting, “Kill the Borse Jews.”

    By the end of the evening on Nov 8, the streets were at last quiet, the mobs dispersed at bayonet point by military police. Heavily armed Prussian state police in green uniforms now patrolled the city. . . .the weather turned extremely cold. That night it began to rain, making life even more difficult for those innumerable Berliners forced to queue up outside the municipal food kitchens and public feeding stations spread across the city. . . .

    Despite the riots and the rain, the infamously louche and tawdry nightlife of Berlin–that “new Babylon of the world” — continued unabated. …along the Kurfurstendamm, the bars and dance halls were, as always, full. As on every night, hordes of prostitutes of both sexes–there were said to be a hundred thousand of them in Berlin alone–paraded outside . . . “A kind of madness” had taken hold of the city, unhinging the whole society. Fortunes were made overnight and as quickly lost or dissipated. Those with money, desperate to get rid of it before it became worthless, indulged in giddy frenzies of spending, while those without sold what few possessions remained to them, including their bodies, in the struggle to survive. A quarter of the city’s schoolchildren suffered from malnutrition.

    Berlin had never been an elegant city. . . .But it had rightly prided itself on being the cleanest and most modern metropolis in Europe. Now it was shabby and going to seed, faded and run down like a “stone-grey corpse,” infested by “beggars, whores, invalids and fat-necked speculators,” its streets crowded by “legless war veterans riding the sidewalks on rolling planks” and by stunted, bowlegged children bent out of shape by rickets.”

  253. @ToonyLoons

    Did you catch the glitch in the Matrix?

  254. Rurik says:
    @alexander

    I couldn’t agree more Alexander,

    the parallels are chilling

    If the Reichstag fire was a false flag, and was used by the Nazis to foist their fascist police state, then 911 is a case of ‘deja vu all over again’, for sure.

    and to add to the irony, there’s this eerie synchronicity as well

    http://www.sott.net/article/173411-The-Jewish-Holocaust-and-the-Palestinian-Holocaust

    (for what it’s worth, I will add that at least the Nazis were cleansing hostile aliens out of their own ancient homelands of Christendom, while the Zionists are cleansing the Arabs out of the Arab’s own ancient homeland. (Biblical claims notwithstanding) To me, morally its like when the Amerindians slaughtered the white settlers who were a threat vs. the white settlers who slaughtered the Amerindians in order to steal their land. I just don’t see the two as morally equivalent)

  255. @SolontoCroesus

    Jonathan Revusky frames his programme for achieving awareness of reality around events of 9/11…

    Well, that’s an interesting statement. I am not really certain I really have any “programme for achieving awareness of reality…”. Unless whacking people up the side of the head and telling them to stop being such schnooks constitutes a “programme”.

    As for being centered on 9/11, as opposed to revisionist history regarding the world wars…. well, I guess that most people are more oriented towards what is going on now or recently, at least. The whole deeper question of “freeing yourself from the Roger Rabbit mental world” is not just about 9/11 or even about all the false flag “Islamist terrorism” hoax.

    Hi Solonto,

    You’re right to note that I refrain from pointing out that the History Channel/Atlanticist version of WW2 is the biggest single “Roger Rabbit narrative”. (You think I am unaware of that? Or are you just trying to draw me out? ;-)) Maybe I’ll write a follow-up about some of that later, if I can figure out the right angle to go about it. The problem is that the brainwashing on that topic is even stronger than it is on all the phony Islamist terrorism and 9/11. In any case, I wrote quite an unconventionally long essay and could not say everything.

    I think he’s Russian

    Since you ask (implicitly) I’m not Russian. I am basically (however ambivalent I am about it nowadays) an American. I am a product of that cultural/racial melting pot. My paternal grandfather was born in the Russian empire. He was a Jew from what is now the Ukraine. However, he came from a rather secularized strata of that society and his education was mostly a secular, Russian language education. So that grandfather (whom I never knew) was culturally Russian, it’s true. I bear his surname. So I’m approximately as Russian as Obama’s daughters are Kenyan, I guess.

  256. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    alexander, rurik, wake up.
    use your brains.

    You are trying to force parallels based on propaganda and emotion.

    Ask yourself some questions:

    When was the last time USA had been involved in an all-out war that resulted in the deaths of about 1.5% of its population? (a million German men died in WWI and 800,000 Germans starved to death in WWI; assuming a population of 50 m, civilian deaths = 1.5%. The equivalent in USA = just under 5 m, or the entire population of Los Angeles with Austin Texas tossed in for good measure)

    When was the last time USA went through a revolution that resulted in the political instability of its governance for over 12 years? (Weimar was notoriously unstable, politically and economically.)

    When was the last time Communists attempted to overthrow the US government? ( Russian Bolsheviks were determined to draw Germany into the Communist orb and sent scores of operatives to subvert the German government and other institutions. This reality makes attribution of the Reichstag fire to Communists plausible. And if it was, indeed, a ‘false flag’ for the purposes of gaining buy-in of the populace to an all-out assault on Communism, it was a relatively harmless ploy: no one was hurt, and only the property of the government itself was destroyed. It’s not like the NSDAP burned a synagogue or a Jewish theater. Moreover, the entire world was afraid of Communism, from Herbert Hoover to the British, they all wanted Bolshevism rooted out.)

    When was the last time USA went through a sustained period of hyperinflation to the point that hundreds of thousands of people faced starvation, or prostituted themselves to survive?

    When was the last time USA was forced to pay reparations to a nation with whom it had been at war?

    When was the last time the USA lost significant portions of its territory, which threatened its ability to feed its people?

    When was the last time a powerful group with vast financial power declared an economic war on the USA with the declared intent to “bring [the American people] to their knees” and destroy the trade upon which US’s existence depends? (This was the intent and effect of the Jewish economic war on Germany, carried on March 1933 – late 1940).

    • Replies: @Rurik
  257. @Rurik

    the parallels are chilling

    Yeah, I think so. As for the people saying that the Reichstag fire was not a false flag operation, or that it is unclear, I have to admit that I don’t know for absolutely sure. To me, just intuitively, the likelihood that the perfect event just happened with the perfect timing for the Nazis — this just strikes me as rather far-fetched. I have never studied that very much and always just assumed that the conventional view was that it was a false flag, and, moreover, that it almost certainly was.

    The thing is that that was 83 years ago at this point, and I think most of us are oriented more towards what’s going down now. The main interest in knowing about these things now is that knowing history (REAL history!) helps you see the patterns, raises your BDQ. That was one key point I was getting at in the essay. So I mention the propaganda about “bayoneting Belgian babies” from 1914. You could say that was a century ago, who cares, but the point is seeing the patterns, right? Next time they start up with some bullshit involving some babies, you gonna believe it so easily if you know the precedents?

    On JFK, they set up this patsy, Oswald. With MLK, it’s this other guy, James Earl Ray. Patsies. That stuff is a long time ago but you learn the history of these things and it just jumps out at you that in these latest things, these are also patsies getting set up, it’s the same deal! Those Tsarnaev brothers in the Boston bombing, those French Arab ethnics in this latest stuff in Paris, like that poor Abdelhamid kid…. THEY’RE PATSIES, same as Oswald.

    Finally, WTF is all this shit, rocket science or what???

    I mean to say, once you know some real, deep history of these things, it becomes just kind of TOO obvious that they set up these patsies. Mohammed Atta and the rest of that band of misfits…. PATSIES.

    Same old, same old, broken record I am… . Finally, Rurik, my friend, I’d have to say basically… if I lay it all out (I’m not the only person mind you and I haven’t personally done any original research, my only possible innovation is presentational) but if you lay it all out and people still don’t get it, well, it’s because they don’t want to. They can’t handle the truth, right? Not psychologically ready….

    • Replies: @Rurik
  258. @geokat62

    But, alas,… TRANSLATION OF REVUSKY-SPEAK: “I still refuse to accept your proposed RoE”

    Well, yeah, but I don’t think there’s much need to translate “REVUSKY-SPEAK”. I just speak in plain English generally.

    So, correct. I don’t accept your “RoE”. Now, unless I completely misunderstand, you want me to promise in advance that, for example, I will not tell you that you are full of shit (or use some other colorful contemporary English vernacular to express roughly the same concept).

    And, no, of course I will not make any such promise. Maybe I could promise: “If, to my great surprise, what you say is not more of your typical BS, and actually makes sense, then I will say so, BUT, if (as expected) you produce more of your typical bullshit, I hereby promise to inform you that you are, in fact, full of shit. (As per usual…)”

    I could promise that, I guess… would that be acceptable?

    Let me ask you this: have you ever previously demanded in a discussion forum on politics, or any other topic, that people promise in advance not to tell you that you are full of shit?

    If so, has anybody ever acceded to this demand?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  259. alexander says:
    @Rurik

    Chilling indeed, Rurik , no doubt.

    Who was it ….Napoleon?….who once said ” Treason is a question of dates”.

    So, too, is the crime of “ethnic cleansing”……at least in my book.

    What I mean by that is to clarify the concrete distinction between the expansion and “manifest destiny” of the early American colonial settlers as they fought the “Amerindians” in their drive westward……..

    and the “nouveau” eastward expansion of the Israeli settlers as they devour the Palestinian territories and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from their lands…

    What distinguishes one “behavior” from the other, Rurik ?

    The “dates”…. Rurik….”.The Dates” !

    When early american settlers pioneered westward, encountering , engaging, and even slaughtering, en masse, huge populations of American Indians……it might have been gruesome at times…and to some , morally questionable…..but it wasn’t an international crime….in fact, it wasn’t a crime at all.

    The world, Rurik, was a raw egg…over two centuries ago…it was all dog eat dog….kill or be killed.

    and it wasn’t just between the Indians and the colonialist…even in many early western towns…the only real “law”, international or otherwise..was the one you carried in your belt holster….that is how most ” international problems”(lol) got solved….by the gun.

    What separates this behavior from the devouring of the Palestinian territory today ?

    The law.

    It is a supreme international crime to engage in ethnic cleansing or acquire territory through force or war…today.

    And irony of ironies, it was the “ethnic cleansing” of Jews in Nazi Germany that made it so.

    Even the most liberal websites, highly critical of Israel, mask this reality.

    Its all about the dates, Rurik…… Ethnic cleansing, like murder,is all a question of dates.

    And if you don’t think so….consider this….if you walk over to your neighbor’s house tomorrow…..and hack him to death with a machete…it is understood by all, today, as the crime of murder.

    But set your time clock back to the Cro-Magnon era….and do the same thing…it wasn’t “murder” back then..it wasn’t anything at all..it was just life.

    Israel, and its apologists have tried desperately to link their settlers behavior to early American settler’s….but in the end its just bogus to do so…..because the behavior is utterly criminal today(especially after the Holocaust)…and they know it is….too.

    Israel is an anachronistic society through and through…..

    and without a viable peace plan of its own, that is fair, reasonable and applicable…it is actually becoming far, far worse.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Rurik
  260. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    So, correct. I don’t accept your “RoE”.

    No worries. I understand, completely… smart move on your part.

  261. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @alexander

    interesting essay on the Calvinist soul of the USA here –

    http://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/calvinism-spiritual-foundation-america#.Vtj11FLmGFJ

    maybe it explains why so many people don’t fit in, and so many people who are not Anglo but have become plopped here in the USA, reject some of the core tenets of this Calvinist Americanism. Because it is murderous, just as deadly as zionism. ‘course they spring from the same mythological root

  262. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    TMA! (Too many Acronyms!) ICBI! ( I could barely read it!)

    Besides everyone loves Jessica Rabbit.

  263. Rurik says:
    @anonymous

    (This was the intent and effect of the Jewish economic war on Germany, carried on March 1933 – late 1940).

    I’ve already stated right on this thread, I think on the very post you’re responding to, that Germany had more right to expel a hostile minority from it’s own, ancient lands than the Zionists have to steal other people’s land. That’s actually quite a radical thing to suggest in this day in age, where the Nazis were supposed to be the very incarnation of evil its self.

    That said, of course someone like myself would condemn the Nazi’s methods. Their police-state tactics and fascist tyranny over dissent would have left no place for a free-minded and out-spoken Rurik to say whatever he thinks and tell any and all authoritarians to **** off. The Nazis would most certainly have put me into a camp, at the very least. So when it comes to their methods, I’m no fan.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  264. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You’re right of course JR, on all accounts.

    People are so often like cattle, that it’s really no wonder that they’ve come to be given that term goyem. Their skulls often seem just as thick, their eyes just as bovine, empty and clueless. Their demeanor just as apathetic. I have to agree that sometimes that’s how they seem to me too.

    But luckily not all of them! There are still a few of them that can think, and how wonderful is that?!

    So we need to keep plugging away. I’m buoyed by the ascendancy of Donald Trump. I watched him last night do a terrible performance but that doesn’t matter. It’s not about him, it’s about us. He said we should be fighting side by side with Putin to crush Obama’s and John McCain’s “moderate” head slicers. This must have caused gasps in some neocon ranks. Sheldon Alelson had a mild aneurism and embarrassingly soiled himself. (possibly). But there’s a slow, almost imperceptible change happening. The moderator said something about Trump mentioning that Bush lied about the wars. This is huge. It’s getting talked about on a stage with millions of people watching. There’s progress happening.

    So please keep up the excellent work JR. It’s efforts like yours, and your willingness to put forth the hard work to piece together a thoughtful and earnest essay like this one that is making a difference. All those truthers and patriots and freedom lovers are slowly making a difference, and there’s hope because of it.

    Cheers my friend.

  265. Rurik says:
    @alexander

    Hey Alexander,

    This was a post I recently made here at Unz on a Israel Shamir thread..

    Israel is unique

    also, Mr. Shamir, if I may point out..

    Israel was vouchsafed to the Jews as a benevolent gesture by the people of the world so that the world might know less misery, and as a repudiation of the Nazis and the Holocaust, so the world might know less horrors.

    Not so that the Jews could play Nazis and commit their own horror-show for the rest of the world to stare aghast at.

    It’s the raging, staggering, earth-shattering hypocrisy of these people who for generations have maligned the German people relentlessly for “their” crimes against the Jews, even while these Jews are perpetrating the same crimes on the Palestinians- whose only offense is that they have the temerity to exist.

    If ethnic cleansing and genocide and stealing people’s land are wrong, then it’s wrong for Gentiles to do it to Jews, and it’s wrong for Jews to do it to Gentiles.

    But this simple truth seems lost on this lot, and that is why there’s so much hostility to them. Not because they’re Jews per se, but because of what they do.

    But they’ll never look in a mirror will they Mr. Shamir. They’re too afraid of what they might see.

    I agree with you that we can’t presume to hold people from different times to the same moral understanding that we possess today.

    But I do have qualms with the way the white man has treated this continent, having wrested it from the Amerindians. After thousands of years, this land was still pristine with the tribes living here, and in just a few centuries, we have driven it to the brink of ecological catastrophe with our blind, insatiable and infinite greed.

    I’m not saying that to condemn the white race per se, but rather as a prayer that somehow we’ll find our way, and glimpse the enormity of the sin that we’re perpetrating on these sacred lands.

    as for the Middle East – your mention of the ancients made me think of this video

    I’m sure it’s been posted to the Unz by now

  266. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    That said, of course someone like myself would condemn the Nazi’s methods. Their police-state tactics and fascist tyranny over dissent would have left no place for a free-minded and out-spoken Rurik to say whatever he thinks and tell any and all authoritarians to **** off. The Nazis would most certainly have put me into a camp, at the very least. So when it comes to their methods, I’m no fan.

    First, are you quite certain you fully understand the methods used by Hitler and the NSDAP? Where do you get your information?
    Have you an awareness of the efforts the NSDAP made to gain the support of the masses of the people, or is you version of events populated with Hollywood black vans and black leather jackets? Have you fact-checked your version against people like Irving, who have interviewed persons who were on the scene, who kept diaries, and who entrusted those memories and memoirs to Irving? Alexander doesn’t trust Irving because he reveals information that is contrary to what many of us have held as gospel for all our lives. Glasses on , glasses off.

    Second, do you have an appreciation of the conditions at the starting point, and the work of re-moralizing a society that had been starved, maligned, humiliated, and whose cultural values were being undermined even more rapidly and degradingly than is happening in USA today? On top of that Bolshevik Communists were trying to overthrow/subvert Germany. To capture Germany for the International Communist project would have been THE major coup.

    Third, back to Machiavelli: when a people have lost their virtu, the only hope of redemption — and it is a slim one — was the imposition of a tyranny, a temporary state of affairs involving some, disciplined and limited brutality to eliminate the most egregious elements (i.e. night of long knives) until the people learned that their leadership could be both loved and feared, and that the vision of the leadership was for a republic that would rest on authority granted to it by the people.

    Fourth, You’re concerned that a “free-minded and outspoken Rurik” would not have fared well in NSDAP Germany. How’s it going for you in the good old USA with its Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and all. Is Rurik your real name? What’s that you say — you conceal your identity out of fear of being targeted by the government, or ADL, or having your career upended, or your taxes audited?
    How do you propose to re-order American political, moral and economic order? Do you think geokat’s **Liberty from the Lobby!!** Facebook page and protest rally are going to change things? Have you joined? What do you know about Savonarola?

    Fifth, it is increasingly amazing to read comments from, for example, Dominique, defending Ataturk who just had to kill those Armenians; “It’s just what happens in war.” (I’ve been to shrines to the victims of the Armenian genocide. ) Stalin is revered, his genocides of millions brushed aside: Susan Butler writes that “he had to do it to save the Communist movement.” Oh. well then. that’s ok. As long as it wasn’t jews being killed, murders by the millions are of no concern.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  267. Rurik says:
    @anonymous

    the imposition of a tyranny, a temporary state of affairs involving some, disciplined and limited brutality to eliminate the most egregious elements (i.e. night of long knives) until the people learned that their leadership could be both loved and feared,

    well, no thank you

    I would not survive under such a tyranny, Hitler’s or Stalin’s

    but I do agree with you that there’s a raging double standard that’s applied to the Nazis vs. all the other egregious regimes of the past and present. Perhaps most appallingly of all is the current Zionist regime perpetrating genocide as we speak.

    Also I’ve always said that the Nazis were a direct consequence of, and reaction to- the genocidal anti-white, Jewish Bolshevik murderous cabal that had grabbed hold of Russia and threatened to do the same to Germany. It’s true that Germany was being ravaged by the Jews of the Weimar regime. It’s true that Germany had been betrayed by the allies at Versailles. It’s true that German had (and still has) a legitimate grudge against the evils that have been perpetrated against her. Yes to all of that. But I don’t and never will absolve the Nazis for their terror campaign against so many innocent people. And for their arrogant racism. It was hubris that was their undoing, and the stakes were simply too high for that kind of thing. But then again, compared to the atrocities and scoundrels of the British and American leadership, the Nazis don’t look that bad by comparison.

    Look at Germany today. A bastion of pacifism and moral and technological advancement, compared to the ZioUS, where it’s genocide and war with every breath. Last night I watched some Zio-presidential hopefuls talking about putting troops in Libya. Madness!

    Go Trump!

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  268. @Rurik

    It’s true that Germany was being ravaged by the Jews of the Weimar regime. . . .

    But I don’t and never will absolve the Nazis for their terror campaign against so many innocent people. And for their arrogant racism. It was hubris that was their undoing, and the stakes were simply too high for that kind of thing.

    Fran Macadam has written that the USA is, today, Weimar.

    In a speech several years ago Chris Hedges said that USA is, today, Weimar.

    Exactly how would you resolve the situation the USA confronts today; namely, of “being ravaged by Jews [in a fashion similar to but not nearly as oppressive as happened during] the Weimar regime?

    What would you do?

    Join the **Liberty from the Lobby!!** Facebook page?

    What would you do, Rurik?

    nb. I find your fulminating about German “racism and hubris” to be irrational, in light of what Germany faced and the extensive measures the NSDAP took to resolve its dilemma without violence.

  269. Rurik says:

    What would you do, Rurik?

    try to educate people

    if enough people know who did 911, then the fallout from that could be existential

    short of that.. leave

    I find your fulminating about German “racism and hubris” to be irrational, in light of what Germany faced and the extensive measures the NSDAP took to resolve its dilemma without violence.

    when I first started to glimmer the truth behind all the lies I was always told about WWII and the Holocaust and all the rest, I did sort of do a kneejerk pendulum swing to the opposite perspective and wondered if the Nazis weren’t actually the good guys. But then I realized that the Slavic people had a point. Who were they to give up their lands to the ubermenschen? If I were a Slav, I’d have stomped every Nazi I could find into the ground as well. With gusto.

    The times were very tenuous, the Jews wanted an all out war on Germany, and Russia was under the thrall of the Fiend. England and France and the US too. It was folly of the worst kind for Hitler to stoke the flames of racial antipathy with the Slavic peoples. They were also victims of Jewish, Bolshevik genocide and gulags and pogroms and assorted daily horrors. Why did they now have to suffer Nazi racial arrogance from the West on top of all of that?

    I can’ help but wonder if Hitler had been less course in his rhetoric with the Russians and Poles and others, if that war might not have been less horrific. Perhaps if so, there’s a lesson in that for us today, with the benefit of hindsight, no?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  270. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    I can’ help but wonder if Hitler had been less course in his rhetoric with the Russians and Poles and others, if that war might not have been less horrific. Perhaps if so, there’s a lesson in that for us today, with the benefit of hindsight, no?

    a. have you ever listened to the entire Why We Fight series of propaganda films by Capra? Compare them to the propaganda Goebbels produced — Goebbels was capable of great evil — he frequently went off the reservation and did things that Hitler adamantly opposed, but Goebbels was a finicky artist and demanded the very highest level of quality in propaganda. Most of German propaganda was to bolster the German people: interesting exercise to correlate German propaganda with Allied firebombing raids.
    On the other hand, Capra and the US Army propaganda was mostly hate-mongering and lies. The American people were not experiencing the kind of devastation the German & Russian people were (just as Americans today are totally detached from the slaughter the US is raining on Syria, Iraq, etc. and that Israel perpetrates against Palestine.)

    b. Cathey’s Politics & Art article a week or so ago brought this to the fore: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/ministry-of-illusion-film-in-the-third-reich/
    Germans produced about a thousand movies in the war years. Only three or four had anything to do with Jews, and in my opinion only “The Eternal Jew” was offensively antisemitic. That film did very poorly in Germany; folks weren’t interested.
    Hollywood anti-German films and Newsreels produced by Luce’s organization were over-the-top demonizing Germans, inciting hate. Luce owned major magazine and news outlets in the war years; he was also one of the key Interventionists.

    c. Do you suppose the war might have been less horrific if the Allies had not dropped so many tons of bombs on German and Japanese cities and killed so many German civilians?

    re:

    try to educate people

    That works best if the educator knows what the hell he/she is talking about.
    This gem http://www.unz.com/article/battling-the-matrix-and-freeing-oneself-from-the-roger-rabbit-mental-world/#comment-1345182
    suggests that you don’t have a clue.

    Jews had been about the business of dispossessing Arabs in Palestine; suborning the British to gain a foothold in Palestine; exploiting the German people from a time before Hitler was born. What you wrote in the linked comment is worse than the worst hasbara from Netanyahu’s trolls; it’s ignorant and anti-factual. When something like that comes from someone supposedly working on behalf of Truth and Justice — education — it sets the whole project back.

    Do some research; create a basic timeline of events. I spent a few hours putting together a zionist timeline, maybe I’ll post it sometime. It’s eye-opening.

    Sailer called David Duke a “has-been” in a recent article, but I just listened to Duke interviewing Kevin MacDonald and Duke communicated some important information. A key point he made was that Jews created a massive population bulge in Europe in the early 20th century, an unprecedented rate of reproduction that overwhelmed Europe like never before or since. Jews did not know what to do with themselves; most were dirt-poor and illiterate and filthy. Jabotinsky himself outdid Hitler in registering his disgust with the condition of Slavic Jews. German Jews despised their Eastern European Jewish co-religionists.

    (nb. MacDonald does not come across very well in interviews. He’s better in print. Try this article, for example: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/slezkinerev.pdf )

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Rurik
  271. utu says:
    @anonymous

    Kurosawa worked during WWII making propaganda movies. From what I have read Japanese movies had no hate propaganda in them. Why then British and American propaganda is so hate filled? Is it because it works and American pragmatism (British empiricism) does not know scruples while German and Japanese then were honor based cultures where pragmatism took the second seat? Or is it because you do not need to motivate people with hate in an authoritarian society because people are disciplined and obey orders while in liberal democracy they are not and thus only hate will get them motivated?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  272. Rurik says:
    @anonymous

    Do you suppose the war might have been less horrific if the Allies had not dropped so many tons of bombs on German and Japanese cities and killed so many German civilians?

    yes, I do SC

    But just take the case of Japan. Would you be fine with Australia today being a subject of Imperial Japan? Under military occupation and all its resources, both human and otherwise being treated as nothing more than fodder for the ambitions and glory of Japanese emperors?

    Imperial Japan had to be crushed. If you doubt that, consider the denizens of Nanking and extrapolate that kind of treatment to New Zealand or Indonesia.

    As for the firebombing and treatment of German civilians (especially after the war was over), I consider those war crimes and atrocities and I believe the people responsible were monsters. Fiends. Hate-consumed racists who resented the Germans for being a better people than the goons and thugs who plotted their cruel, and yes, horrific deaths. There is no kind of hatred on this planet like the murderous, all-consuming hatred of a mediocre man for his betters. And that is why Germany was hated then, and that is why Germany is hated today. If the Germans were stupid, ugly people who never accomplished anything of consequence, they’d be left unmolested. It’s precisely because they were a great race that they were crushed with so much awful cruelty. But as I said, part of being great is also a sense of noblesse oblige, and had the Nazis possessed a little more of the latter, I suspect the hatred that was unleashed on the German civilians once they were at the mercy of the victors, might have been a little less terrible.

    you don’t have a clue.

    I went back to that post and re-read it and I still don’t know what you’re on about. Perhaps this;

    “a repudiation of the Nazis and the Holocaust, so the world might know less horrors.”

    but aren’t you the guy who says there was no Holocaust? So is that what you mean?

    Let’s assume that there was no Holocaust. It didn’t matter. The propaganda had done its job. The people of the western world believed it all, they believed that Germany had done this terrible crime, and so when the Jews came to them and asked for Palestine as a safe haven, they were influenced by the narrative that, right or wrong, was already part of the matrix by that time.

    I’m aware of Duke and MacDonald. I have no issues with what they are saying, I consider both men patriots from the perspectives of their own tribe.

    much of what I say is closer to your positions than most of what others say. (or so it seems to me)

    but because I refuse to sugarcoat some of the more egregious mistakes of the Nazis, (getting suckered into war in the first place) you’re always full of invective. I look at what was done, and see the horrors, and try to ask myself, how can this be avoided in the future. That’s why one of my main agendas is to try to make Russians and Poles and Germans and American all see that we all have and share a common interest in peace and prosperity and a common enemy (international banking and Zio/Anglo treachery). And that enemy is the exact same force for evil that is trying to foist wars today. The people of Germany and Russia and England have every reason to be friends and partners in the world. Eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine as well. The only reason they’re at each other’s throats are do to the lies and propaganda they’ve had shoveled into their souls from day one.

    The truth is the Russian people were also a victim of the Fiend, just as the German people and the Polish people and the Ukrainian people. Just consider.. the Germans at least have been able to move on from the horrors of WWII, and thrive. But the Ukrainians have been languishing in misery since before that war, and afterwards, and even today there is hatred and blood in the streets. Kolomoisky is the enemy of all Ukrainians, but they’re too lied to inside the matrix to see it. That is where we need to spread the truth.

    This is getting too long. ; )

  273. Rurik says:
    @Rurik

    (international banking and Zio/Anglo treachery).

    obviously I’m not trying to impugn the British or Jewish people when I say ‘Zio/Anglo’, but there are some Brits (like Tony Blair) and Anglos (like Dick Cheney) and Jews (like George Soros) who deserve every bit of the world’s condemnation- at the very least. And if anyone deserves to be treated like they ultimately treated Saddam, it would be one of these fellows. IMHO

  274. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Or is it because you do not need to motivate people with hate in an authoritarian society because people are disciplined and obey orders . . .

    German society, at least, was quite intelligent. Furthermore, and significantly, they had present knowledge of having endured starvation and political and economic chaos, and were well aware that British, Americans, Communists and Jews were planning or delivering more chaos — German civilians who were being firebombed knew that the bombers were British and American.

    re Germany (I don’t know much about Japanese society), I tend to re-examine the label “authoritarian.” The late Joseph Campbell once observed that Hitler had a unique genius to move/persuade people in large numbers; his method was drama, based in his years-long study and enjoyment of opera. Campbell said that not even the most hardened British spy infiltrating a Hitler rally could resist raising his arm in the Hitler salute, so mesmerizing was Hitler’s appeal. The pageantry, the music, the mythos — all combined to appeal less to force and coercion and more to some deep, shared bond, to German cultural unity. (in my opinion the Iranian people share a similar bond, in their culture and literature, but the American people have no such bond. USA has no national epic, for example, but Iran does.)

    . . .while in liberal democracy they are not and thus only hate will get them motivated?

    James Madison said “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

    The American people have been lied into every war since (at least) WWI. They have been misinformed and disinformed. Most certainly Franklin Roosevelt carried on a multi-year campaign of lies, deception, character assassination and dirty tricks and indeed crimes to “educate” the American people to the “need” to wage war against Germany, which, after all, had not done anything to the USA.

    (It should also be noted that the American people have no present knowledge of having endured war and suffering of the scale that USA has inflicted on other nations since WWI, in WWII, in Viet Nam, Iraq, Syria, etc.)

    LBJ lied about the Viet Nam war.
    Bush lied about Iraq.
    We are lied to about Iran — http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-contrived-iran-threat/#comment-1345276
    We are being lied to about Syria, and ISIS, and almost anything we are told, or not told, about Israel is embedded in lies or concealment.

    Hate is a tool of subversion, a bastardization of the principles that Madison urged, in order that present leaders may further subvert the counsel of George Washington wrt to appropriate foreign relations: http://www.earlyamerica.com/milestone-events/george-washingtons-farewell-address-full-text/

    One more point: Machiavelli wrote that the wisdom of the People was superior to that of either the Prince or of the Aristocrats. The necessity of lying to the people, and inciting them to hate in order to “motivate” them to carry out the wishes of their leaders, then maybe the situation is that leadership is authoritarian or irredeemably corrupt.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  275. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    We’re trying to win people over with cogent analysis and logic, because we value the truth and want others to see it,

    With that end in mind, here’s my contribution:

    For those who are truly seeking the truth and are not 100% convinced they have already found it, I recommend reading all 306 pages (including the appendices) of a paper published back in 2008 by Ryan Mackey, It is a response to David Ray Griffen’s response to Popular Mechanic’s response to David Ray Griffen’s original book on 9/11.

    1. Here is a summary of Mackey’s paper:

    In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the “controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

    http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_1_1.pdf

    2. Here’s a chronology of relevant publications for those who’d like to do their own research:

    March 2004 – David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11

    July 2004 – 9/11 Commission Report

    March 2005 – Popular Mechanics, “9/11: Debunking the Myths”

    March 2007 – David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking

    August 2007 – Ryan Mackey, On Debunking 9/11 Debunking

    May 2008 – Ryan Mackey, On Debunking 9/11 Debunking (Updated version, which addresses critical responses starting on page 165, including Jim Hoffman, Maintaining the Mirage: A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory of the Demolition Deniers, December 2007 (updated version May, 2008) and Kevin Ryan, The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey)

    3. Here’s a little information on the background of the two leading dramatis personae:

    Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft. He is a graduate of the University of California, Santa Cruz and the Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories at the California Institute of Technology (GALCIT). He has authored sixteen NASA Tech Briefs and Technical Reports, and received two United States Patents for his original research. He has contributed to numerous projects including the Joint Strike Fighter, NASA’s New Millennium Program and Project Constellation. His introduction to fringe beliefs regarding September 11th and the works of Dr. Griffin came through informal Internet discussions hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to raising public awareness of paranormal and pseudoscientific fraud. While the author pursues this effort independently of these and any other organizations, he is indebted to them for their contributions to science, education, and critical thinking.

    David Ray Griffin is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a political writer.

    4. Here’s an essay written by Ryan Mackey, The Great Internet Conspiracy, The Role of Technology and Social Media in the 9/11 Truth Movement (Version 1.0, 2 November 2011)

    Excerpt from page 7 of 83:

    “This is the great paradox of the Truth Movement. While the sheer volume of its sound and fury is daunting, none of it is particularly clever or interesting when taken individually. Out of the entire space of argument I entered, spanning topics as diverse as modeling the fireball size and plume motion following United 93’s impact, to time analysis of RADAR returns over Manhattan, to estimating kinetic effects of American Airlines 77 impacting an industrial generator on its way to the Pentagon, I cannot recall even a single instance of being stumped or worrying that the Truth Movement might finally have found something incontrovertible. This is not to say I was always the best educated on the subject, or even that I was always correct. There were several instances where I was quite mistaken, as will happen to anyone now and then. But in every such case, we were able to work through the problem, and the point of contention simply did not lead to the conclusion, succinctly put, that “9/11 was an inside job.” I learned many things from this exercise, but usually my opponents did not. The Truthers preferred to quibble over minute details, searching in vain for any means to continue the argument, using any distraction or excuse to avoid admitting problems with their beliefs. It grew rather tedious.”

    http://www.911myths.com/tgitc_1_0_final.pdf

    5. Hardfire: 3-part interview with Ryan Mackey on The Physics of 9/11

    http://youtu.be/gUazHEBlDGI

    http://youtu.be/yvYFCWcxVtM

    http://youtu.be/ZsDn6es7mtk

    6. Hardfire: 3-part debate b/w Ryan Mackey and Tony Szamboti (mechanical engineer) on The Collapses of Twin Towers

    http://youtu.be/n1u3KO9kUdE

    http://youtu.be/Guz04iFYxXY

    http://youtu.be/kDvDND9zNUk

    7. Democracy Now debates between Loose Change creators and POPULAR MECHANICS (starting @ 17:17)

    http://youtu.be/fVQ1-o6FKxA

    So, I invite all UR commenters to go through all of this material with an open mind and encourage them to reach their own conclusions.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  276. Sean says:
    @alexander

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

    Proven to be wholly false flag. But even that is disputed by Jak P. Mallmann-Showell.

  277. Rurik says:
    @anonymous

    wage war against Germany, which, after all, had not done anything to the USA.

    except perhaps to declare war on it

    let’s not forget that it was Hitler who declared war on the US, not vice versa

    I’ve been told he did that to honor a treaty with Japan, but I’ve also read that he considered Americans stupid, inbred morons who just weren’t that big of a threat

    either way, remember that hubris I was talking about, and the reason it was so disastrous considering the stakes involved?

    Hitler knew FDR was a Jewish tool, and had to know what defeat would mean for Germany

    • Replies: @anonymous
  278. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    there’s nothing there Geo

    just some people saying ‘the truthers are wrong’ the buildings collapsed because of the jets and fires, and so did building seven even tho it wasn’t hit by a jet. There were vibrations and that fire in that one office was very hot. Sure, it could cause a steel frame building to collapse into its basement just like a controlled demolition, because some ‘experts’ say so.

    Forget all the chafe, and just look at building seven. How did they know it was going to come down Geo?

    How could that event, something universally considered impossible by thousands of professionals who’re wiling to put their reputations, (if not lives) on the line, and say it’s impossible, how could they have reported it before it even happened, unless someone who handed them that script knew it was going to come down. And if they knew, then it could only be because it had been planned, and if it had been planned and wired for a demolition, then we all know it wasn’t Osama that did it.

    This is not rocket science. We don’t need to talk about physics or thermite particles or mathematical calculations. All we need to know is that the collapse of building seven was reported in the western media before it happened. That’s it. That’s all you need to know.

    You could go on and ask yourself why all the evidence of the worst crime committed on US soil, let alone the forensic evidence of the total failure of structural engineering wasn’t studied at all or poured over to find out what exactly happened, but rather was scurried away to China to be melted down with no investigation. You could ask yourself such questions, but you don’t need to. All you need to do is understand that they reported on building seven collapsing before it collapsed. Even in one case of Fox News, they reported it collapsing right as it was collapsing. That was a doozy.

    listen to them try to spin it

    ‘incredibly structurally damaged’

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @geokat62
  279. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    [B] Israel was vouchsafed to the Jews as a benevolent gesture by the people of the world so that the world might know less misery, and as a [A] repudiation of the Nazis and the Holocaust, so the world might know less horrors.

    and

    Let’s assume that there was no Holocaust. It didn’t matter. The propaganda had done its job. The people of the western world believed it all, they believed that [A] Germany had done this terrible crime, and so [B] when the Jews came to them and asked for Palestine as a safe haven, they were influenced by the narrative that, right or wrong, was already part of the matrix by that time.

    My quarrel is with the chronology (the mawkish sentimentality — “benevolent gesture” — raises hackles, but that’s style not substance).

    By 1948 Jews had already spent over fifty years playing on the world’s sympathies and causing massive suffering among other people — Russians, Germans, Palestinian Arabs, the peoples of the Ottoman empire — all in their quest for Jewish dominance over Palestine that culminated in the 1948 declaration of Israel as a Jewish state.

    Jews experienced far less “misery” in their drive to possess Palestine than did the millions of people who suffered along the way in their path to that accomplishment.

    First of all, the sheer, numerical, A comes before B chronology:

    Jews started dispossessing Palestine from about 1907 (Hitler was ~18 years old, mourning the death of his mother and wandering aimlessly in Vienna drawing pictures of buildings) .

    By 1910 Arthur Ruppin had built Tel Aviv as close to Jaffa as could be managed, in order to dispossess indigenous Arabs of their rents and trade in oranges. Tel Aviv was designed to look like a German city in order to appeal to European Jews.

    By 1917 Chaim Weizmann had insinuated himself into British government circles, playing upon one= or all- of the three forms of antisemitism that he perceived to be useful to achieve his goal — British acquiescence to Jewish colonization of Palestine. His part of the deal was to deliver US entry into the Great War to bail out Britain; his reward was Alfred Balfour’s grant to Baron Rothschild of a “homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.”

    When Germans said that they were “stabbed in the back,” they are correct (in my view): Germans paid the price of the Jewish acquisition of Palestine. For decades before, and during WWI, Germans had supported Jews in their settlements in Palestine — Ruppin was born and trained as a lawyer in Germany; he used German models to establish Modern Hebrew Culture in zionist Palestine.

    By 1932 the zionist project was facing bankruptcy; in the midst of the worldwide depression, exacerbated for zionists by British restrictions on Jewish migration to Palestine — only German Jews had the capital that British regulations demanded, and German Jews were not willing to leave their comfortable and prosperous homes in Germany. Jews in Germany had gained great prominence in the Weimar government and what they thought of as a revitalized German social and cultural scene (many Germans thought the new art and culture debased and degraded, and very many Germans were impoverished, even starving in a chaotic political and economic atmosphere).

    But as Tod Lindberg observed in a discussion with C Bradley Thompson at CATO, by the 1930s, “Weimar was running out of steam.”

    On or about Feb. 14, 1933, Louis Brandeis directed to Rabbi Stephen Wise that “all Jews must leave Germany . . . all 587,000 Jews must leave; no Jew must remain.”

    What is doubly significant about the directive that all 587,000 Jews leave Germany is that at the very same time, millions of Russians and Ukrainians were being starved to death in Bolshevik Russia, and Poles and Jews were also killing each other. Rabbi Wise had been preaching and publishing since 1900 that “6 million Russian Jews” were being starved, persecuted, facing annihilation, etc., yet it was the wealthy German Jews that Brandeis directed to migrate.

    The period between Hitler’s chancellorship — and Brandeis’s Feb. 1933 directive — and the onset of hostilities in 1939 was one of feverish activity and a quantum leap in wealth and prosperity for Jews in Palestine. According to Edwin Black in The Transfer Agreement, in the midst of the Depression zionist Palestine became the most prosperous place in the world. Chauffeur-driven Mercedes travelled Tel Aviv’s narrow streets, carrying jewel-bedecked Jewish matrons.

    In August 1933 at an event to raise funds to build Hebrew University in Rehovath, Samuel Untermyer called Hitler’s Germany “barbaric . . . savages;” he said that Germans owed their cultural accomplishments to Jews, “the aristocrats of the world.”

    In 1937, Erich Mendelsohn, “the Jewish architect,” built Hebrew University on Mt. Scopus as well as luxury residences for Chaim Weizmann and for the Schocken family in Rehovath.

    Also in 1937, David Ben Gurion wrote to his son

    What is in our actual possession is a small portion, less than what they [the Peel Commission] are proposing for a Jewish state. If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant. But in this proposed partition we will get more than what we already have, though of course much less than we merit and desire. The question is: would we obtain more without partition? If things were to remain as they are , would this satisfy our feelings? What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish [all emphasis original]. A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for me– if it were Arab.

    From our standpoint, the status quo is deadly poison. We want to change the status quo [emphasis original]. But how can this change come about? How can this land become ours? The decisive question is: Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country?

    My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.
    When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land. This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.

    We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish economy– agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.

    We must always keep in mind the fundamental truths that make our settlement of this land imperative and possible. They are two or three: it is not the British Mandate nor the Balfour Declaration. These are consequences, not causes. They are the products of coincidence: contingent, ephemeral, and they will come to an end. They were not inevitable. They could not have occurred but for the World War, or rather, they would not have occurred if the war had not ended the way it did. . . .

    Throughout the 1930s Ben Gurion; Vladimir Jabotinsky; Benzion Netanyahu, Jabotinsky’s acolyte; and numerous Jewish zionist leaders in the USA and Britain raised money, delivered speeches, demonized Germany, lobbied Roosevelt and Churchill; while in Europe cadres of an off-shoot of Jabotinsky’s militant forces coordinated with those leaders to carry out one of the major goals of the zionist vision, the ingathering of the diaspora. Jabotinsky’s Mossad el-aliyeh el Bet was tasked to motivate and assist German and other European Jews to leave their homes and break the British blockade into Palestine. They did so with the knowledge and assistance of the German gestapo.

    By 1938 much but not all of Brandeis’s directive had been achieved. One final motivating push — Herschel Grynszpan’s assassination of the German diplomat in Paris — one final provocation, a Pearl Harbor moment, a 9/11 event to demonstrate to the world the true evil of the German-Japanese-Muslim enemy and the world would rush to the support of persecuted and beleaguered Jews.

    In a discussion of his book, The Worth of War, Benjamin Ginsberg explained how provocations work:

    Take for example, Dr. Martin Luther King. [He was] a tremendous practitioner of civil disobedience, but he understood it for what it was; he learned from Gandhi, he learned from Samuel Adams that civil disobedience is mechanism of goading your opponent into being violent. Once they become violent, , you can call on your friends to be even more violent against them.
    So Dr. King knew that he could goad Sheriff Jim Clark into behaving violently and stupidly and then the FBI would descend on them. http://www.c-span.org/video/?323264-1/book-discussion-worth-war

    The assassination of vomRath achieved the desired effect: Goebbels (not Hitler) issued directions for a measured, controlled unleashing of pent-up German anger against Jews — who had been waging economic war on Germany since 1933 — that was limited to property damage only, and was to last one day only. The world was aghast at this eruption of German barbarity; it proved everything that years and miles of Hollywood film had warned: the Hun was a brute. Journalist Dorothy Thompson lead a movement to raise funds for Grynszpan’s defense.

    Between the time of Brandeis’s directive in Feb. 1933 and the eruption of German rage in November 1938, Hitler and the NSDAP had used their power and authority and control over the German people to quell physical violence against Jews. No Jew had been sent to a concentration camp in all those years.

    In August 1942 the Riegner Telegram which alerted the world of plans for the Nazi Holocaust was delivered to Rabbi Wise.

    On June 11, 1944, the Jewish Agency in Tel Aviv under the directorship of Ben Gurion met to discuss whether they should request that the Allies bomb Auschwitz. The Agency recorded that at the time “they believed Auschwitz to be a labor camp,” and they did not wish to be responsible for the “death of a single Jew.” (from a paper by Rafael Medoff for the Wyman Institute, ~2011).

    Most of these things happened before a single Jew was harmed by Germans under Hitler and the NSDAP.

    Jews have been — rather, have claimed the status of — exclusive victims of the events in Europe, and have simultaneously obscured or concealed the role of Jews as actors, influencers, and provocateurs in these events. As well, the vast suffering of so many other non-Jewish people has been rendered invisible, in a vacuum created by hyperbolized attention to an alleged holocaust of Jews.

    I believe that your statement that “Germany had done this terrible crime, and so when the Jews came to them and asked for Palestine as a safe haven,” is belied by a clear-headed review of some basic facts, and that repeating such a factually distorted but emotionally-charged narrative only reinforces a falsehood, thereby strengthening the position of the oppressors.

    Next, set the chronology into the zionist myth- mental framework: Theodore Herzl had pleaded with Bismarck to assist the Jewish people in an Exodus — Herzl’s word — from Germany to Palestine.

    Think about the Exodus and its meaning to Jewish people:
    a. Having lived prosperously and securely in Egypt for ~400 years, Jews, recognizing that they no longer have as much sway over Egyptian government as they once enjoyed, set out to migrate from that place. They steal from the Egyptians, they kill Egyptian leaders, they kill the next generation of the Egyptian people. They leave for a promised land where they will dispossess another people of their lives, lands, homes.

    From a Michael Ledeen talk I learned that in the Sinai, “Jews killed Jews.” Specifically, Ledeen said, “Levites killed those Jews” who resisted migrating to the land of Canaan, preferring to remain or return to Egypt. This is extremely important.

    b. Apply the same

    • Replies: @Rurik
  280. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    there’s nothing there Geo

    I guess you’re not part of the target audience I was appealing to, Rurik:

    For those who are truly seeking the truth and are not 100% convinced they have already found it,…

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  281. Rurik says:
    @anonymous

    I believe that your statement that “Germany had done this terrible crime, and so when the Jews came to them and asked for Palestine as a safe haven,” is belied by a clear-headed review of some basic facts

    I was speaking to the narrative. It is because Germany was perceived, (whether it did or not) to have committed this terrible crime- and that the Jews were innocent victims- was one of the reasons Israel was handed to the Jews. Other reasons include the meme that the eternally persecuted Jews had been unfairly run out of Israel by anti-Christian Roman brutes 2000 year previous or persecuted by the Spanish during the Inquisition or by the crusaders before that, etc… These memes were inserted by Hollywood and other organs of cultural control into the matrix specifically for this purpose.

    But that does not change the motivations for why the people of west recognized Israel. It was as a benevolent gesture, regardless of the treachery and realities on the ground that few if any Americans or Brits or others knew anything about.

    And I was writing that to point out why the people of the west are today not all that thrilled with the genocidal and cruel actions of the Zionists, since it was as an act of repudiating genocide (even if manufactured) that was the motivation for allowing the Jews to have Palestine in the first place.

    Had there been no Holocaust narrative, their would not have been an Israel. That’s all.

    Now, it you wanted to discuss the treachery of the Zionists vis-a-vis the world wars, well then that’s another thing all together. In that case, yes, absolutely, Germany (and the West in general) was horrifically betrayed.

    And, it’s because I don’t want to see the same thing happen in this century too, (something the same group of people are trying to accomplish) that I post here. (With the added benefit that I also get quite the education at times. ; )

    • Replies: @anonymous
  282. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    let’s not forget that it was Hitler who declared war on the US, not vice versa

    slaaaaaam dunk.

    ok Rurik, I surrender, you’ve totally destroyed any argument I might have.

    not.

    I’ve been told he did that to honor a treaty with Japan, but I’ve also read that he considered Americans stupid, inbred morons who just weren’t that big of a threat

    The Americans, Roosevelt, the Luce publishing conglomerate and Jewish-owned Hollywood studios, on the other hand, were deeply, rapturously in love with Germany and would never, ever say an unkind thing about it. After all, they might hurt somebody’s feel bads and start a war that had consequences.

    either way, remember that hubris I was talking about, and the reason it was so disastrous considering the stakes involved?

    How you can claim that a nation — Germany — that had been starved, was being overrun with immigrants and subversives, whose political system had been hijacked, and whose culture was being debased was behaving hubristically by trying to correct those things that they considered offensive to their way of life is beyond my ability to comprehend.

    What should the German people have done — allowed Bolshevik Communists to take over their government? That worked well for Poland, dint it?

    Applied to the IMF for loans to calm the hyperinflation? Hitler, Schacht and Goring had a better idea — and it worked.

    Do you think for one single New York minute the USA was not going to go gunning for Germany sooner or later? Read my comment here — http://www.unz.com/article/killing-someone-elses-beloved/#comment-1346149
    re Allied firebombing of Germany. Roosevelt and Morgenthau began to plan for war on Germany, in earnest, by October 1938 at the latest. Hell, the US Army had a plan of attack against Germany laid out in the 1920s.

    Hitler knew FDR was a Jewish tool, and had to know what defeat would mean for Germany

    Agree that Hitler knew FDR was a Jewish tool, but Hitler and the German army conducted themselves as a military force. I don’t think they did understand the full level of brutality and barbarism that the Allies would unleash on Germany.

    Rick Atkinson’s trio of books on WWII starts with the North Africa campaign, where US conscripts came in raw and were taught/trained to hate. THEN, Atkinson says, they became a true fighting force. (My Dad was in that part of WWII. Fortunately, he was wounded & permanently disabled. I say fortunately because his wounds meant that he probably never killed anybody. That would have destroyed his soul.)

    Some of the most devastating battles the US fought in N Africa were against the French — supposed US allies.
    Germans fought very soldierly battles, and when they were defeated, they surrendered, with military discipline and order.
    When Germans surrendered in Europe they did not expect to be disemboweled, or bulldozed into the holes in the ground where they sought shelter — 98% of Americans who were German POWs were returned home in relatively good health. Don’t think they expected that 2 million of their women would be raped — incidents of rape by German soldiers were severely punished,

    No I don’t think Hitler understood fully what defeat would mean for Germany. R H S Stolfi calls Hitler a “Romantic” because he fought the war with a sense of military honor. You call that hubris. Maybe you’re right.
    Whichever, we who seek to take lessons from this history would do well to understand the depths to which our military, influenced as it is by Jews and Jewish mythology, can sink to. Today at CPAC Kasich and Cruz discussed with Hannity how US fighters should be given free rein to “carpet bomb the shit out of Islamic terrorists.” “We are a compassionate people, we are pro-Life, ” Hannity said; and Cruz concluded his monologue with “We will uphold our Judeo-Christian values.”

    And I’d have to study the situation further to figure out if Germany really had a choice — Roosevelt and Churchill — and the Jews — were determined to destroy Germany. Hitler’s choices were to resist or to surrender, similar to the situation Iran is in today.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  283. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Rurik,to be fair, I write this as a follow-up to my previous comment on the assumption that you might have slightly less than 100% confidence you are in possession of the truth.

    This is not rocket science. We don’t need to talk about physics or thermite particles or mathematical calculations. All we need to know is that the collapse of building seven was reported in the western media before it happened. That’s it. That’s all you need to know.

    I wouldn’t be so sure, Rurik. Let me ask you this question:

    If key members of the scientific community, including Prof. Zdenek Bazant of Northwestern University (see below), have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that that “gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of [WTC1 and WTC2]“, and that controlled demolitions have no scientific merit, wouldn’t this call into question the hypothesis that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. I mean, why bother going to the trouble of demolishing WTC 7, but not WTC 1 and WTC 2? Wouldn’t you agree that makes little sense – i.e., either all 3 bldgs were wired, or none were?

    What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

    Zdenek P. Bazant1, Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le2, Frank R. Greening3, and David B. Benson4

    Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm—0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas more than 150 tons of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 mph (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are found to be indeed negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.

    http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @Rurik
  284. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    Had there been no Holocaust narrative, their would not have been an Israel. That’s all.

    I don’t want to be tiresome, but my entire argument is that Jews had Palestine under wraps well before a holocaust.

    years before a holocaust.

    the holocaust meme was ex post facto

    holocaustism did not become a prominent feature on the American landscape until after the Eichmann trial, and after Israel won the 1967 war.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=holocaust&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cholocaust%3B%2Cc0

  285. @Rurik

    But just take the case of Japan. Would you be fine with Australia today being a subject of Imperial Japan?

    Rurik, I’m not sure this is all that strong an argument for the U.S. involvement in WW2. Okay, sure, if Japan had been allowed to achieve her war aims, Australia and New Zealand, say, would be under Japanese political domination. I don’t know offhand how bad that would have been. Most likely they would be nominally independent with Quisling type rulers. (And lots of the local Aussies and Kiwis would line up to be the local Quisling probably….)

    But, look, the standard Atlanticist/History channel version of things that we are all indoctrinated to the gills with is that if Germany and Japan had achieved their war aims, it would have been awful, much worse than the way things turned out. However, that is impossible to demonstrate. One result of WW2 was that Stalin ended up dominating all of Eastern Europe, right up to East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia…. Poland as well, the Baltic States…. If Hitler had achieved his war aims, all those places would have been under German domination rather than Soviet domination, right? Would that have been better or worse?

    I’m honestly not sure.

    But regardless, why should some farmboy from Iowa care enough to go there and get killed or maimed over it?

    Getting back to the Asian theater, we have no idea of what would have happened had Japan achieved her war aims, since Japan lost. But as things turned out, the U.S. not long afterwards killed millions of people in North Korea and in Vietnam. There was a genocide in Cambodia, there was a communist takeover of mainland China, and a horrendous genocide of hundreds of thousands of people in Indonesia, that was perpetrated by a U.S. puppet regime. To me it looks pretty speculative that, even assuming that Japan would have behaved brutally, that it would have been any worse in absolute numbers than the way things things played out. In any case, it’s impossible to demonstrate one way or the other.

    So I’m not sure why you’re arguing all this History Channel type stuff. I thought you were more in the Ron Paul camp, that the rest of the world is largely none of our business to fix, i.e. we should mostly just mind our own business. And certainly, at this stage, the whole pretense is getting ridiculous. The U.S. should demonstrate that it can fix itself before going off and fixing (a.k.a. wrecking) the rest of the world.

    Anyway, leaving all that aside, do you still maintain that this Geokat individual is an honest person?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  286. @geokat62

    I wouldn’t be so sure, Rurik. Let me ask you this question:

    If key members of the scientific community, including Prof. Zdenek Bazant of Northwestern University (see below), have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that that “gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of [WTC1 and WTC2]“,

    Except that they never did demonstrate that “beyond reasonable doubt” because if they had, there wouldn’t be thousands of signatories to the petition from “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” calling for a new investigation. This is precisely because those thousands of architects and engineers consider the explanation unsatisfactory, if not outright preposterous.

    So the premise of your question is clearly false.

    I mean, why bother going to the trouble of demolishing WTC 7, but not WTC 1 and WTC 2? Wouldn’t you agree that makes little sense – i.e., either all 3 bldgs were wired, or none were?

    Well, of course all three buildings were wired! That’s precisely the point! If building 7 was clearly a controlled demolition then all three buildings were. Of course! In my essay, I didn’t even bother to say that, leaving it as an exercise for the reader, because it’s so damned obvious!

    Once you understand that each building has a core of 40-odd steel support columns, the whole idea that the building can just “pancake” is ludicrous. For all the 40-odd steel columns to fail within the same second or so, producing a vertical straight-down free-fall speed collapse, the thing has to be carefully engineered. And that is precisely what a controlled demolition is.

    Now, I asked you this before and you always declined to answer: what, in your opinion is the strongest evidence available that the attacks of 9//11 were, as the U.S. authorities claimed, orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden from faroff Afghanistan?

    Could you answer that question? NB: A valid answer is that, in fact, there is no evidence that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with it. But at least answer the question. I answer your point above, which isn’t even a valid question, because it assumes something that is false, which is that these guys demonstrated something ” beyond a reasonable doubt” which they obviously never did. Yet I answer, even though it’s an invalid question, I address it.

    I ask you a valid question and you dance around and refuse to answer.

  287. @geokat62

    For those who are truly seeking the truth and are not 100% convinced they have already found it,…

    If people are trying to tell you that a pig can fly, and you do not take them seriously, it is not due to a lack of desire to “truly seek the truth”.

    It is simply because one is not a complete fool.

    (And even if one were to accept that there are some extraordinary circumstances under which a pig can fly, what would one think if a reporter reported the flying pig 20 minutes before it ever leaped into the air and became airborne?)

    • Replies: @utu
  288. geokat62 says:

    You talking to me? All you have to do is accept the RofE and I’ll talk back to you… otherwise you’re wasting your time.

  289. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Mr. Revusky, perhaps you could join the discussion on Sandy Hook above. I like your arguments!

  290. Rurik says:
    @anonymous

    How you can claim that a nation — Germany — that had been starved, was being overrun …was behaving hubristically … … is beyond my ability to comprehend.

    not for those reasons you suggest, but rather for alienating the Slavic peoples with talk of racial superiority. By underestimating the wrath of the Jewish controlled Anglo and French countries. He was facing the same people and forces that had betrayed and starved Germany into a generation of depraved slavery. He might have been a little more circumspect when it came to the threat, that’s all.

    I’m not doubting the sheer, unmitigated evil of the forces lined up against him, I’m saying it would have been more prudent for him to be less dismissive of the talents of the Russian and Americans and others.

    Not to malign him or Germany, but to suggest a more prudent course for the people of the world going forward.

    Do you think for one single New York minute the USA was not going to go gunning for Germany sooner or later?

    yes of course they were, just as they are today. But like the frog and the scorpion, they’re also gunning for England and France and N. America. Their infinite and congenital hatred of the frog will be their undoing, even as it gives them a ride, for now.

    I don’t think they did understand the full level of brutality and barbarism that the Allies would unleash on Germany.

    he should have, of all people

    (my dad served in the Pacific theater btw)

    98% of Americans who were German POWs were returned home in relatively good health.

    yes, and over a million German POWs (mostly teenage boys) were liquidated in Eisenhower’s death camps after the war was over. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of German POWs that were held literally as slaves for work progects for years after the war was over. But I don’t have to tell you that now SC, do I?

    Hitler’s choices were to resist or to surrender, similar to the situation Iran is in today.

    Iran is playing it perfectly. Not too arrogant, but not too timid. It’s masterful. They make those sailors show contrition, and then let them go. That’s how it’s done.

    Putin even more so. They’re trying very, very hard to do to Putin what they did to Hitler. But Putin isn’t biting. Statecraft at its best. Both Putin and Iran know the nature of the fiend who has them in the crosshairs. The first thing about its nature is that its a coward, and then you go from there…

  291. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    Rurik. Let me ask you this question:

    If key members of the scientific community, … “gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse …, wouldn’t this call into question the hypothesis that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition

    no Geo, it wouldn’t

    because gravity is not sufficient to explain how they knew building seven was going to implode

    it’s no different than if the BBC and Fox News had reported that a jet had hit the first tower 10 minutes before it did. Any and all logic would say such a thing was impossible to report on as a mistaken coincidence. It would mean that who ever wrote the report, knew what has going to happen. This is simple logic. Simple reasoning…

    we don’t need :

    Zdenek P. Bazant1, Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le2, Frank R. Greening3, and David B. Benson4

    Abstract: … analysis of progressive … … calculated from the differential equation …uncertain values of some parameters, …allegations rest….observed size range (0.01 mm—0.1 mm) … theory of comminution… converted to kinetic energy, sufficed…gravitational collapse …(or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h)…fluctuations … …margin …indeed negligible …. calculated crush-down duration … logical interpretation… seismic record, …fall duration grossly disagrees …

    we don’t need all that

    all we need- is to see building seven plop to the ground with our own eyes, and then realize that they reported if falling before it fell, and then do some honest research- to determine that they are obviously lying

  292. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Rurik, I’m not sure this is all that strong an argument for the U.S. involvement in WW2

    I basically agree JR

    (And lots of the local Aussies and Kiwis would line up to be the local Quisling probably….)

    yes, but I’d hope that the local Aussies would find the wherewithal to cut their throats, if so. ; )

    If Hitler had achieved his war aims, all those places would have been under German domination rather than Soviet domination, right? Would that have been better or worse?

    that would depend on your ethnicity in all probability, but for the people of West, Central and Eastern European ethnicity, I suppose it would have been better. Much better especially for those poor souls sent to the gulags or worse.

    But regardless, why should some farmboy from Iowa care enough to go there and get killed or maimed over it?

    it’s a tough question, because what if that farm boy’s sister was an American citizen living in the Hawaiian Islands, and was now subject to Imperial Japanese rule, and perhaps assigned as a ‘comfort girl’ for the Imperial Japanese war effort.

    To me it looks pretty speculative that, even assuming that Japan would have behaved brutally, that it would have been any worse in absolute numbers than the way things things played out. In any case, it’s impossible to demonstrate one way or the other.

    Perhaps. And certainly it might have been better for the millions of victims of Mao and the assorted victims of the US and others. But then I just don’t see how the Western world would countenance the people of Oceana being under a Japanese boot. There’d have been some strife, I suspect, to be sure.

    I thought you were more in the Ron Paul camp, that the rest of the world is largely none of our business to fix, i.e. we should mostly just mind our own business. And certainly, at this stage, the whole pretense is getting ridiculous. The U.S. should demonstrate that it can fix itself before going off and fixing (a.k.a. wrecking) the rest of the world.

    I fully agree with that and I am firmly in the Ron Paul camp. I have been a supporter (including financially) when he was running. I went to rallies and people considered me a kind of Ron Paul freak. It is because I believe in all that, that I try to make others understand the folly of contrived (banker’s) wars for fun and profit. I am passionately against immoral wars. (But if there was a valid one, and one that should be fought, I’d hope you’d find me in the front lines, or not at all).

    do you still maintain that this Geokat individual is an honest person?

    I think so. I suspect that like so many other people I know personally, and are of good will, they just can’t ‘go there’ when it comes to the hard truth about something so momentous. Something so earth-shatteringly existential. One reason I say that is because he’s still here. Still vying his (sorry Geo) pathetic arguments. It seems more like desperation than shilling and disinfo. IMHO.

  293. @Rurik

    But then I just don’t see how the Western world would countenance the people of Oceana being under a Japanese boot.

    How would they countenance it? I dunno…. Same way they countenanced all of Eastern Europe under the Soviet boot. There was an uprising in Hungary in 1956 and the Soviets suppressed it violently and the U.S. basically said, okay, that’s the Soviet sphere of influence. And I reckon hardly a single farmboy in Iowa lost a moment of sleep over that. So….

    Anyway, all of that, that Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the rest ended up behind the Iron curtain, that was a direct result of WW2, the deal FDR made at Yalta, I guess. Probably a pretty disastrous result for the POV of those people. But history played out the way it did finally and 44 years later the wall fell and now there is no Soviet Union any more.

    So one point I’d make is that, if Hitler had achieved his goals, National Socialist Germany would have ended up dominating all those various countries instead of the USSR and the whole thing would have played out however it would have played out. I’m not saying it would be better or worse because it’s impossible to know.

    I’ve studied the Japan situation less, I suppose, but I reason in a similar manner, that if the U.S. had simply remained a neutral party, and Imperial Japan thus had been left a free hand to achieve their goals in Asia, that history would have developed however it would have and the current-day world would not necessarily be worse or better than it is now. But there’s no way to demonstrate it anyway.

    The real point is this, Rurik. You have these anglozionists or neocons or ultra-militarists or whatever you want to call them (maybe just assholes…) in Washington and they have this whole ideology they push about U.S. intervention being this great force for good in the world. You know the acronym RTP, right? Responsibility to Protect. Somehow it is the business of the U.S. to be “protecting” all these people somewhere else. Like in Libya. Okay, it’s the most absolute total bullshit imaginable, we know that… destroy the village in order to save it….

    But the point is… if you look at all these interventions they are all total humanitarian disasters, like in Afghanistan or Iraq. Or in Libya now, or what they’ve been trying to do to Syria. Vietnam was a nightmare. And there’s really no way to spin any of it positively. (Or that would require a level of lying that even is hard for them to pull off.) So basically they have to fall back on WW2, which was supposedly the “good war” and say how great a thing America did by getting in that. Hence the need to keep going with this Roger Rabbit comic book version of WW2, saying that we were soooo GOOD and they were sooooo EVIL and all this utterly oversimplified bullshit. And that’s why they are so concerned with persecuting revisionists like David Irving, who have a more balanced view of the whole thing.

    I mean to say, since they can’t point to a single successful U.S. intervention since then, they have to keep going with this simple-minded mythology about WW2. You see what I mean? If they admit that the alleged “good war”, WW2, was actually morally ambiguous at best, they’re kinda left with nothing, aren’t they?

    So I guess, I would say that, you can argue the counterfactual history until the cows come home, what would happen if the Japs were left a free hand or if Hitler had managed to defeat the USSR or whatever. But whatever did happen is what happened and can’t be changed. The operative question is the ideological use of history and the whole “good war” narrative, which IMHO doesn’t really stand up to much serious scrutiny.

    Regarding Geokat, I don’t know, man. In the last so many messages, I have written various counterpoints to his nonsense and he hasn’t replied and I don’t see how he can frankly. Allegedly he has some devastating response, but won’t provide it because I didn’t agree to his “Rules of Engagement”. In other words, unless I promise not to tell him he’s full of shit, he won’t provide his devastating rebuttal to my counter-arguments, which we all know he has, of course. (Surely he wouldn’t bluff, right?)

    Well, you’re right to call him pathetic, I guess, that’s the right word. BTW, I wonder… does it violate Geo’s “Rules of Engagement” to call him pathetic? Oh, what’s that? You didn’t sign on to his “RoE” either? LOL.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  294. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey JR,

    There was an uprising in Hungary in 1956 and the Soviets suppressed it violently and the U.S. basically said, okay, that’s the Soviet sphere of influence. And I reckon hardly a single farmboy in Iowa lost a moment of sleep over that. So….

    well that was whitey after all putting it to whitey. I suspect that there lingers in most of us a tribal gene that would have a problem with people racially far removed- with having their way with one’s own, so to speak. People could countenance white (if Jewish) commies killing and raping other whites, but I think they’d perhaps have a problem if it was being done by Asians (or Arabs or blacks, etc…) Might be frowned on. But then again, the French looked the other way when the whites of Haiti were raped and slaughtered, and they did the same ‘today’ as the whites of Zimbabwe were being murdered, so perhaps you’re right.

    As for all the rest, I agree with you. They’ve milked the “good war” narrative until it reeks. Good war my arse. I get angry and sad when ever I contemplate the sheer enormity and evil of it all, and how it was all perpetrated by a tiny few, while so many suffered so unimaginably.

    Lets try to keep them from doing it again. ~ They want to. That’s for sure.

    As for Geo, well I didn’t say he was pathetic, just some of his arguments. It’s not like I can’t see the trolls. I figure the wiz is one, if ever a one there is. Many others. But with Geo, I don’t feel the same way. After reading enough of his posts, I’ve come to consider him of good will, if occasionally in error. How many people do you know personally who no matter how much you reason with them, they just can’t ‘go there’? I know plenty. Think of that fellow RTW for instance. Sometimes we get carried away by invective and can’t see past it. I’ve been guilty of that.

    I’m not saying I know for sure, I don’t know for sure about anyone but myself. But that’s been my inkling.

  295. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Still vying his (sorry Geo) pathetic arguments. It seems more like desperation than shilling and disinfo. IMHO.

    Sorry, Rurik. I think it would have made more sense if you had ended this sentence with just 3 letters, instead of 4. What happened to the spirit of having an open debate on this topic and embarking on a journey of discovering the truth, wherever it may lead?

    And as for your response to this question:

    do you still maintain that this Geokat individual is an honest person?

    I think so. I suspect that like so many other people I know personally, and are of good will, they just can’t ‘go there’ when it comes to the hard truth about something so momentous. Something so earth-shatteringly existential. One reason I say that is because he’s still here. Still vying his (sorry Geo) pathetic arguments. It seems more like desperation than shilling and disinfo. IMHO.

    As my cache of previous comments clearly demonstrate, I have no issues with “going there.” I know what “The Fiend,” as you like to put it, is capable of. That’s why I’m in favour of opening up another investigation to determine what role the Israelis played before, during, and after the events of 9/11. I’m even willing to go so far as accepting the LIHOP proposition if reliable evidence can be produced to support this claim. As far as the MIHOP proposition is concerned, however, I don’t believe a compelling case has been made thus far by any in the Truther Community (TC) that supports it. But before I get into the reasons why I say this, I just wanted to make a comment about the mindset of the two sides that are debating this issue.

    I think what this may come down to is a fundamental difference in the way we (you and I) come to accept whether something is likely to be true or not. For you, it is enough to have seen video footage of WTC 7 collapsing into its own footprint to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that it was by controlled demolition. I mean how else did this structure collapse, considering it wasn’t even hit by a plane? In your mind, the video footage of the collapse is ipso facto sufficient evidence to conclude that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, end of story.

    My mind, however, works a little differently. I need to see the physical evidence that supports this proposition. Because no matter how closely the collapse of WTC 7 resembled that of a controlled demolition, I still need to see evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it was indeed a controlled demolition that brought it down.

    Now, after reviewing all of the materials I posted in one of my previous comments, here are the reasons for my having serious doubts with the controlled demolition hypothesis:

    First, did you actually take the time to view the Hardfire videos I linked to in my previous post? If so, what did you think about this little exchange (@10:58 of the second part of the debate) between Ronald Wieck, the host of Hardfire and Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer from the TM, who graciously agreed to come on his show to debate Ryan Mackey, the rocket scientist from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Labratory? When Tony Szamboti was asked to clarify what he thinks really did happen, here’s the exchange that ensued:

    RW – [Demolition experts explain] how you go about setting charges to bring down a normal size building… That the fires would explode the explosives.

    TS – Not necessarily.

    RW – You keep saying not necessarily. But demolition experts say that they would.

    TS – They do, ok.

    RW – It would take teams of 75 to 100 men working for months to prep the WTC.

    RW – We get back to the absence of any audio evidence of explosives.

    RW – [according to the demolition experts] the logistics would be daunting to the point of impossibility.

    Part 3 of the debate concludes with the following question put to Tony Szamboti:

    RM – Tony, do you have a single piece of steel from anyone from any report that shows evidence of explosives, which is a very characteristic signature? Do you have a single piece?

    Second, did you manage to get to the part when Mackey presents the Hardfire Modeling Challenge (@22:10 in part 3 of Ryan Mckey interview) encouraging people to put together a good model… to declare what the expected result is of that model:

    RM – “They way it’s done is that in science you should publish and subject your modeling to peer review…. you’ve also got conferences. The threshold of acceptance at a conference is considerably lower… and encourage them to put together a good conference paper.”

    Do you think that the model (shown @14:00 in part 3 of Hardfire’s Ryan Mackey interview) of how the towers should have withstood a collapse presented by Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay area architect, the founder Architects & Engineers for 9/11Truth in 2006, meets Mackey’s challenge? He uses 3 cardboard boxes in his office to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the structures should have withstood collapse, in the absence of a controlled demolition.

    Third, regarding the number of Architects and Engineers who either support or disagree with the NIST reports:

    Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report (by December 2014, over 2,300 architectural and engineering professionals had signed the petition), but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don’t believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

    Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings – they don’t seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth – there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth tried to get the American Institute of Architects to pass a “Building 7 resolution” – “a Position Statement in support of a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.” However, it failed by a vote of 3,892 to 160 – garnering just over 4% support.

    http://911-engineers.blogspot.ca

    Fourth, I’ll leave you with this quote by Ryan Mackey, who was asked by Hardfire host, Ronald Wieck, to elaborate on his concept of “The Irreducible Delusion”:

    “As people we have this strange ability to fool ourselves. And one thing that can happen sometimes is if we have a belief and we make an assumption that isn’t correct, it is sometimes very difficult to let go of that belief. So what can happen sometimes is if I, for instance, were to believe in something that was wrong, but I come across some evidence that contradicts that belief, I’m not necessarily going to just abandon that belief. It’s difficult for me stop and say “I know I’ve made a mistake.” What’s more likely to happen, what happens a lot of the time is that I will try and come up with an explanation that keeps those two things together. I’m going to come up with a more complicated story that preserves my original belief that seems to explain away this new evidence I’ve found that contradicts it. Now this can happen over time. And, if I do this more and more, I’ll get further and further away from reality because I wind up making more and more excuses for myself. But if you want to solve that problem, the way to do it is not to deal with the excuses, they way to do it is go back and reevaluate your assumptions. And at the core of that, a lot of the time you’ll find there is this assumption down at the bottom, that is lurking there, that is causing all of this confusion. That is what we call the Irreducible Delusion – you can’t refine the problem any further than that. This is the root. And if you find that root, you can pluck it out. Then you’ll understand what’s going on in much better detail.”

    If you viewed the first part of the debate between Ryan Mackey and Tony Szamboti @13:10, you’ll find the Irreducible Delusion assumption that Tony Szamboti made that leads to the wrong conclusion – i.e., the towers were not expected to collapse as they did.

    Finally, I look forward to continuing this debate with you in a spirit of open mindedness and mutual respect, always seeking the truth… wherever it may lead.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  296. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    Double Bind!

  297. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Outstanding article. Another reason for the existence of HIQI’s:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    Upton Sinclair

  298. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    Hey Geo,

    For you, it is enough to have seen video footage of WTC 7 collapsing into its own footprint to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that it was by controlled demolition.

    not just me, but here’s a professional demolition expert seeing the implosion of building seven for the first time.

    he has since died in a car crash on his way home from church. (Sometimes people die in strange car crashes, like Jorg Haider for instance, or Michael Hastings, and it’s nothing to worry about).

    do you have a single piece of steel from anyone from any report that shows evidence of explosives, which is a very characteristic signature? Do you have a single piece?

    maybe one reason why there’s a dearth of evidence is because they shipped all the forensic evidence off to China to be melted down before it could be investigated.

    But they did leave some of it behind..

    and to the issue of all the experts and professionals who haven’t joined the truther movement, just considered that tenured professor James Tracy who was fired for his ‘conspiracy theories’, or Dr. Steven Jones who was put on paid leave and eventually had to retire from BYU because truthers are hounded by official witch hunts and forced out of employment and denigrated and scourged and if they’re inconvenient enough, possibly even David Kelly’d.

    I think, going back to our different ways of thinking, it’s true, we do have a different way of thinking. I’m more of a ‘hand’s on’ type of guy. That’s how I live my life. I do things with my hands. I build things and use mechanical and electronics and a synthesis of these elements in my professional life. I’m not an academic. I don’t pour over scholarly tomes to find out why things are the way they are. Rather I look at them, and see what’s in front of my face, and make judgments. I’m not university educated, I’m self educated, and that’s how I perceive the world. I don’t rely on experts or academics to tell me what’s what. I didn’t need to see the Danny Jowenko video to see that building seven was obviously a controlled demolition. Obvious to me because that’s how my mind works.

    I remember being with my mother in the kitchen when the space shuttle Challenger exploded. And other than the shock at that terrible tragedy, I remember telling my mother how utterly bizarre it was how all these talking heads were discussing the possibility that there were no survivors. I thought it was crazy. I thought they must be out of their minds. I knew beyond any doubt whatsoever that there were no survivors, that nothing could have survived what we had just witnessed, but still all the reporters and all the experts were all waiting for some kind of official word that there were no survivors. And I remember being struck by how utterly different was my way of looking at the world. So I suspect that in that way, you’re right. We do think differently and understand our respective worlds based on a different way of processing knowledge and what we see with our eyes. I suspect that if tomorrow, the president of the US was to come on TV and say to the world, that ‘yes, it turns out that Osama was able to hire sneaky experts who wired building seven for a controlled demolition, and that they’ve just discovered this and that they’re going to try to track these sneaky devils down, if it’s the last thing they do’, that then, you and a lot of other people would do a palm to the forehead, and go ‘wow, those sneaky devils!’ I hope they can catch them!’ Finally being willing to believe that building seven was a controlled demolition, because the authorities had declared it so.

    This is simply how most people think. It doesn’t imply they’re dumb or anything like that. Just that they tend to have an authoritarian bent. Most people do. That’s why for a lot of people, nothing is real until they see it on TV. I remember dating this gal when Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 came on TV, and she was all ‘wow, you were right about Bush’. She never considered the stuff I said to her about Bush until it came on television, and then when she saw it there, suddenly it was all true. Most people are like that.

    Anyways..

    Cheers Geo ; )

    • Replies: @utu
    , @geokat62
    , @geokat62
  299. @geokat62

    What happened to the spirit of having an open debate on this topic and embarking on a journey of discovering the truth, wherever it may lead?

    Well, yes, Geo, there are cases in which there is a journey of intellectual discovery via open debate and so forth.

    But not always. Some debates are just a dead end. For example, everybody sane knows that some kind of “intellectual open debate” about flying pigs ain’t gonna be no exciting intellectual journey. It leads quickly to the fact that pigs do not possess wings, and even if they did, they still couldn’t fly. That’s it. You know, actually, when Rurik said “There’s nothing there, Geo.” that was the most succint statement of the situation possible!

    There’s no there there!

    When NIST claims that building 7, a massive steel-framed skyscraper, not only collapsed, but collapsed in a perfectly symmetrical way, identical visually to a controlled demolition, as a result of uncontrolled fires, there is only possible conclusion: THEY ARE LYING. When this person you cite, Ryan Mackey, makes the same claim, HE IS LYING.

    It is not solely that the fires were not anywhere near hot enough anyway (the pig has no wings) but even if they were, it would never produce a perfectly symmetrical collapse (i.e. even if the pig had wings, it still wouldn’t fly). The straight-down symmetrical collapse requires all 40-odd core steel columns to fail at precisely the same moment! This must be engineered. To claim that this came about by uncontrolled fires is like claiming that the faces on Mount Rushmore appeared there as a result of erosion from wind/rain without any human agency. It is ABSURD.

    Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report (by December 2014, over 2,300 architectural and engineering professionals had signed the petition),

    LOL. First of all, since when is 2300 people a “handful”? Besides, that number is the the people with the balls (or ovaries) to sign their name. Obviously, if 2300 people signed their name to it, a far greater number agrees, but did not sign. So what is this ridiculous nonsense about a “handful” of architects and engineers?

    but they have never come up with an alternative.

    This is a complete logical fallacy. IIRC, it’s called “argument from ignorance”. You tell me O.J. killed his wife. I don’t believe you and your argument is that I have to be able to tell you who did kill O.J.’s wife. (OK, most likely O.J. did kill his wife, but I’m pointing out that the argument is invalid…) Or for me to say that the biblical creation story cannot be literally true, I have to be able to tell you how the world came into being. And since, in all honesty, I cannot tell you how the world came into being, therefore the bible story must be true!

    This is a well known logical fallacy!

    So similarly, there is no onus on the architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation in that petition to be able to tell you exactly what happened. In fact, that is presumably what the purpose of the new investigation they are calling for is, no?

    What they do know is that the official explanation is impossible. When the likes of Ryan Mackey tries to make hay with this nonsense that the other side of the debate has not provided a comprehensive story, he is engaging in first order dishonesty. He must know that is fallacious. I watched that debate with Tony Szamboti some time ago and was very depressed by how Szamboti let these jerks get away with murder in the so-called “debate”. (Oh, did you notice that that Ronald Wieck guy was supposed to be the “moderator”, an ostensibly neutral position? LOL)

    there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

    This is like arguing that, if a million Americans marched on Washington demanding an end to the various wars that this is meaningless, because the other 300+ million Americans did not march, and therefore, are in favor of the wars. This is another well known fallacy.

    This is chock full of logical fallacies. By the way, in any of the interchange we have ever had, have you ever managed to point out a logical fallacy in my discourse? I wrote, apparently 9400 words above, and can you point out a logical fallacy? You write fairly little and it’s just chock full of elementary logical fallacies.

    Do you think that the model (shown @14:00 in part 3 of Hardfire’s Ryan Mackey interview) of how the towers should have withstood a collapse presented by Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay area architect, the founder Architects & Engineers for 9/11Truth in 2006, meets Mackey’s challenge?

    Well, this is a classic example of dishonest debating tactics, whereby the other person always has to demonstrate something to you and you never have to demonstrate anything yourself.

    Did Ryan Mackey ever demonstrate how uncontrolled fires cause a massive steel-framed building to collapse in a perfectly symmetrical manner? Of course not. Because he can’t demonstrate that any more than he can demonstrate that pigs can fly. So he emits a challenge and demands that somebody else demonstrate something. And, guess what, if the person is stupid enough to fall for this, whatever demonstration he provides will be found insufficient!

    No, you tell us how the pig gets airborne. Also, and by the way, while you’re at it, also explain how they reported the flying pig 20 minutes before it even got into the air!

    I don’t really want to have to write any more rebuttals to your pathetic delusional bullshit. I actually have better things to do with my time. I guess I do this out of some sense of civic duty, but I do wonder whether to bother because we’re past the 300 mark on the comments and maybe hardly anybody is reading anyway.

    • Replies: @L.K
  300. utu says:
    @Rurik

    As you brought up Challenger I thought of Columbia in 2003. It was just before Bushes war with Iraq and propaganda was intense and all the false reasons for the war that would start in April were repeated over and over again. And we were not supposed to think about Israel. And when Columbia desintegrated we found out there was Israeli astronaut on board. And then we heard the word Palestine as most debris was found around Palestine, Texas. Then the war started and Jessica Lynch was captured and amongst all media hoopla about her we heard the Palestine word again. She was from Palestine, West Virginia. These were some kind of Jungian synchronicity events as if the the real world was trying o tell us what the world created by media was hiding from us.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  301. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    I didn’t need to see the Danny Jowenko video to see that building seven was obviously a controlled demolition. Obvious to me because that’s how my mind works.

    Hey, Rurik. One last post… and I’ll leave you alone.

    I just wanted to round out the materials I provided previously with this audio debate between Chris Mohr and Richard Gage, back in 2011. Chris Mohr provides the following background to the debate:

    “With the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks upon us, a group of 9/11 conspiracists are working hard to publicize their claims of scientific validity to the conjecture that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The architect Richard Gage is the founder of the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which focuses on the controlled demolition theory. So outraged was I by the Bush administration’s justification for the war in Iraq based on faulty WMD intelligence information that I initially thought that Gage might be on to something, until I examined his science carefully and engaged him in a spirited debate on March 6, 2011 in front of 250 people in Boulder, Colorado. (Listen to the debate audio.) The video of that debate is not being released (his own website admitted that twice as many people changed their minds in my direction as his during the debate), so I created 20 short videos on YouTube that present detailed rebuttals of each of Gage’s claims…”

    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

    Here’s link to the audio debate between Richard Gage and Chris Mohr:


    Here’s a link of Chris Mohr’s Respectful Rebuttal of Richard Gage’s 9/11 Blueprint for Truth:

    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL92DAE5DE3C22CF4F

    Here’s a link to Adam Taylor’s A Response to Chris Mohr’s Respectful Rebuttal of Richard Gage’s 9/11 Blueprint for Truth:

    https://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/responsetochrismohr4-1.pdf

    • Replies: @Rurik
  302. L.K says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Mr.Revusky wrote:
    “I guess I do this out of some sense of civic duty, but I do wonder whether to bother because we’re past the 300 mark on the comments and maybe hardly anybody is reading anyway”

    I was reading it!

    Brilliant post(309) btw & excellent article, so many good insights. I’ll be looking forward to your next contributions at Unz review.

    You wrote to Geokat : “You write fairly little and it’s just chock full of elementary logical fallacies.”

    Nicely put. I had noticed the same pattern.

    Regards

    • Replies: @Rurik
  303. Rurik says:
    @utu

    Jungian synchronicity

    (I’ve always liked Carl, even if he was a bit cerebral)

    I noticed those things too, but I only really wondered what the Israeli was doing there

    It can not have been for anything humanitarian, that’s for sure

  304. Rurik says:
    @L.K

    so many good insights. I’ll be looking forward to your next contributions at Unz review

    I couldn’t agree more LK, and that includes your contributions as well sir

    • Replies: @L.K
  305. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    Well Geo, I appreciate all your research and efforts, and I’m still convinced that your motivations are honorable, it’s just that we will never agree on the possibility that building seven could have fallen the way it did, from those fires and “vibrations”.

    Just ask yourself this one question.. How many structural engineers have advised people to evacuate all steel-frame high-rises at the event of an office fire or two? On the possibility that the entire building might collapse?

    If they really, really believed that building seven fell the way it did- due to office fires compromising the structural integrity of the entire building, and that office fires can cause a building to crumble into the ground, then why are they warning people?

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @geokat62
  306. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Hey, Rurik. I was mistaken… my previous post wasn’t the final one, but my penultimate one. I was prompted, in part, to post another comment, by the chirping from the peanut gallery.

    I like your use of argument by analogy, it has the advantage of sometimes making complex issues more understandable by relating to something people are more familiar with. However, there are also disadvantages when using this approach. The risk is you may chose an analogy that isn’t quite appropriate in terms of how well it aligns with the issue that is being debated – in this case how people think about things and arrive at conclusions.

    You suggested you’re a “hands on” kind of guy and as such you needed little supporting evidence to conclude that all on board the shuttle were killed… as opposed to most other Americans, who were transfixed to their TVs waiting for the news people to tell them what to think, rather than thinking for themselves. I can’t argue with you that many Americans actually prefer having someone else do their thinking for them, than actually thinking for themselves. But I think you’ll agree that a significant percentage of Unz commenters do not fall in this category.

    So, rather than using the analogy of TV coverage of the Challenger disaster, I’d rather use the analogy of two murder cases.

    In Case #1, we have a victim and two suspects:

    Suspect A is 5’2″ tall, male, Caucasian, wearing a black suit
    Suspect B is 6’9″ tall, female, Black, wearing a white suit

    Their is video footage of the crime scene where Suspect A is clearly shown to pull out a gun and fire it multiple times at the victim.

    In Case #2 we again have a victim, but this time there is only one suspect:

    Suspect A is 6’0″ tall, male, Caucasian, wearing a black suit

    Once again, there is video footage of the crime scene where someone, who is 6’0″ tall, male, Caucasian, wearing a black suit, is clearly shown to pull out a gun and fire it multiple times at the victim. But in this case we later discover that Suspect A has, in fact, a look alike who is 6’0″ tall, male, Caucasian, wearing a black suit. Only by a deeper investigation could it be determined that the look alike was indeed the real killer, and not Suspect A.

    So, I agree with you that in Case #1 there is no need to consider the evidence, since it is obvious who the murderer is. This I think accords with your TV coverage of the Challenger disaster.

    But I think the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 aligns more closely to Case #2.
    There are two competing models (Model 1: airplane strike, fires, collapse; Model 2: controlled demolition) that try to explain what brought those buildings down on 9/11.

    Again, for you, the video footage of WTC 7 collapsing is sufficient to conclude it was by controlled demolition. For me, I need further evidence… and here’s why: imagine if it was you who happened to be Suspect A in Case #2. How would you feel if people were suggesting there was no need for a trial since it was obvious that you did it? I’d be the one insisting that a trial should proceed because a deeper investigation may produce the evidence required to exonerate you.

    Peace be upon you, Rurik

    P.S. Anyone noticed the same pattern?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  307. L.K says:
    @Rurik

    Thanks for the flowers Rurik.

    In fact, I often desire to participate but just don’t have the time.

    But there are several interesting points made by several people, including yourself and solonto croesus, so I’ll try to address some of it in this thread in the following days, time allowing.

    Best wishes

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  308. @geokat62

    Only by a deeper investigation could it be determined that the look alike was indeed the real killer, and not Suspect A.

    Your analogy is a total fail. In terms of the discussion over whether the collapse of building 7 is a controlled demolition, there is no “look-alike”. There simply is no phenomenon that looks exactly like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. It is not even a question of trusting one’s own judgment on it. You can go to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and watch videos with the testimony of people who possess domain expertise telling you this.

    Rurik posted (reposted, since it was embedded in my article) the Danny Jowenko video. There, you have a demolition expert look at the video, without being told where and when it took place, and the guy says it’s clearly a CD! This really should be enough for a fair-minded person to accept that this is a CD.

    But if it’s not a CD, then tell us what the name of this other phenomenon is, an event that looks exactly like a CD, enough to fool an expert, but is not a CD. What is the name of this phenomenon? Oh, it doesn’t have a generally accepted name? Oh, maybe that’s because, aside from 9/11/2001, said mystery phenomenon — the event that looks exactly like a controlled demolition but is not a controlled demolition — NEVER TOOK PLACE!!! Not ever before or after! Fascinating, eh?

    There are two competing models (Model 1: airplane strike, fires, collapse; Model 2: controlled demolition) that try to explain what brought those buildings down on 9/11.

    No, there are NOT “two competing models”.

    Suppose you go to a playground and half the kids on the playground believe that Santa Claus exists and the other half know that he doesn’t exist. Would you say that the children there have “two competing models”??!!

    No, of course not! What you have is that some of the kids still believe the bullshit and other kids have reached the level of maturity to be able to see through it. This is one incremental step of maturation towards adulthood. Some kids have made the step and other have not. It’s not “two competing models”.

    This relates fundamentally to the article I wrote. (Remember that? What this comment section is supposedly discussing? Up top there?) The article is only very partially about 9/11. The title refers to the Matrix (i.e. the propaganda matrix) and escaping from a “Roger Rabbit Mental World”. It’s about seeing through the bullshit. 9/11 is just one example, albeit one extremely huge, conspicuous example for sure!

    How would you feel if people were suggesting there was no need for a trial since it was obvious that you did it?

    Now, this is a fascinating example of extreme moral double standards — well, hypocrisy basically. What is the situation here? The authorities claimed, on the very same day, that these attacks were orchestrated by a man named Osama Bin Laden in faraway Afghanistan. They were perpetrated by 19 young Moslem Arab fanatics.

    In the above, you express all this concern about people jumping to conclusions, yet you do not, have never expressed any concern about this — that they claimed Osama Bin Laden did this from the very day of the attacks, at a point in time when there had been NO INVESTIGATION and there was NO REAL PROOF AT ALL. And there is no sign that this bothers you at all!

    In previous discussions, I repeatedly asked you what the best available evidence was that this Bin Laden story was true, that these people were guilty of what they were accused of. You refused to answer the question. And you engaged in significant levels of dishonesty whereby I got openly pissed off at you. Now, you affect that you won’t talk to me because I won’t promise not to tell you what a dishonest jerkoff you are. (However, I think everybody knows that you decline to debate me because you don’t stand an ice cube’s chance in hell.)

    Anyway, on the Bin Laden question, first you evaded the question by claiming that you didn’t hold a view on the matter, you were agnostic. Then you later wrote things tacitly assuming that Bin Laden was guilty of what they were accusing him of.

    So, you are willing to write stuff assuming the man’s guilt and then, when somebody asks you what the proof is, you just walk away.

    But, anyway, you NEVER answered the question. I ask it again:

    What, in your opinion, is the strongest available evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden from Afghanistan?

    By the basic principles you espouse, there is no way to avoid answering this question. (Well, without being an obvious hypocrite, I guess….)

  309. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Well Geo, I appreciate all your research and efforts, and I’m still convinced that your motivations are honorable, it’s just that we will never agree on the possibility that building seven could have fallen the way it did, from those fires and “vibrations”.

    Never say “never,” Rurik. Here’s one more piece of evidence that attempts to address the hypothesis that controlled demolitions brought down the twin towers and bldg 7:

    http://youtu.be/2OviTulBP78

    View it and tell me what you think.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  310. geokat62 says:

    However, I think everybody knows that you decline to debate me because you don’t stand an ice cube’s chance in hell.)

    All you have to do is accept the RofE I proposed, and we’ll see whose ice cube melts first… because I truly relish the opportunity to debate you, sans the invective. All you have to do is say “yes” and the dance can begin. What are you waiting for?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  311. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    I watched most of it Geo. Some cool footage of controlled demolitions to be sure. But nothing much else except smears of the heroes like Richard Gage who are risking it all for that thing I’ve always said I care about… the truth.

    Jr makes a great case as to your analogy scenario with the false accusation when he mentions how all these people even to this day all act like the whole Bin Laden crapola is for real, because Ehud Barak said it was Osama minutes after the buildings fell. And they continue with this blinding absurdity even now. It’s amazing. Are you too one of those people who believed that Osama was taken out by heroic Navy SEALs and his body dumped in the sea?

    Anyways forget all of that. Forget the absurdities of Osama and all the rest, and just focus on how they reported on building seven falling before it fell. You’re an intelligent man with rational faculties. I’ve glimmered that over the months I’ve been participating here. So please just explain how it was possible for several media outlets to know this building was going to fall? Your whole point is that if fell on it’s own, unexpectedly due to fires. If that’s so, and the building fell unexpectedly, then how were these media outlets able to report on it before it fell?

    Just please give a reasonable answer to that one question. And we’ve already heard that ‘there was a lot of confusion that day, so it wasn’t unexpected that they would report on things before they happened’. But those are not reasonable explanations, now are they?

    As I’ve said, if the BBC or Fox News had reported a jet hitting the first tower 20 minutes before it hit, and then tried to dismiss any questions about how they knew with ‘well, there was a lot of confusion and stuff. Please stop with all this conspiracy craziness’, I suspect that just because someone on TV was calling anyone who had questions ‘conspiracy nuts’, that that would be good enough for most people. They’d simply accept that there was nothing untoward about reporting on the plane hitting before it did. things like that just happen, you know. There’s nothing conspiracy about it.

    Human nature I suppose. We’re tribal animals, and we’re wired to go with the chieftain on matters of importance. We’re not designed to think, but rather to go with the flow.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  312. @geokat62

    because I truly relish the opportunity to debate you,

    Yeah, sure you do…. Methinks the Lady doth protest too much.

    Your RofE is out of the question because it basically just means that you want to be able to play all your dishonest games and not be called on it.

    Your whole “debating style”, if it can be called that, basically consists of copy-pasting and linking a whole bunch of discredited bullshit and then saying something like: “I find this really convincing and anybody who looks at it will find it convincing too.” You don’t provide any synopsis where you explain why you find it convincing. You just say: “you should watch this or read that and you’ll find it convincing”. And often it’s hours of video material. Or it’s hundreds of pages of… crap basically….

    Just copy-pasting and linking voluminous amounts of crapola and then saying that this is convincing and not even saying why — this is not really a legitimate form of debate. I’s argumentation by inundation maybe… the person just copy-pastes all this bullshit to try to inundate you…

    No, you have to formulate an argument yourself and, basically, you never do.

    The other thing is this hardcore blowhard attitude, where you never concede a debating point and just keep trying to bull on. So, for example, you link this Popular Mechanics bullshit and say that you find it convincing and that anybody who reads this would find it convincing. I respond, pointing out that this has been made into a book and it’s on Amazon, and the majority of reviews on Amazon give that book 1 star out of 5, the lowest possible rating. I link the amazon.com page where you can verify this. So this is objective evidence that people do not find this material convincing!

    So, your claim that this material is convincing to people, is just shot out of the water. But you don’t concede the point. You just keep bulling on. You find some other garbage to copy-paste and link and now you say that’s convincing. Again, you don’t say why you find it convincing.

    Actually, you hardly ever say jack shit yourself. It’s just copy-pasting and linking voluminous crap, and, to tell the truth, it’s not even clear to me that you’ve looked at all of it yourself, since you never provide any synopsis of any of it. You claim it’s really convincing stuff but never say what is convincing about it!

    I know that if I ask you a straight question, I’ll never get a straight answer. Like, I ask you: what is the strongest proof, in your opinion, that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by Bin Laden from Afghanistan? Okay, everybody with a grain of sense knows that you won’t answer the question because, obviously there is no proof of the Bin Laden story. And you know that. No proof that withstands the proverbial laugh test anyway. But rather than concede the point that there is no proof, you’ll just keep going on and copy-paste more bullshit that you dug up.

    Well, basically, you are a complete and utter clown, okay? Your whole RoE schtick is based on the idea that you are owed respect, and that, somehow, I am not treating you respectfully, as you deserve. But look, this is an internet discussion forum. Respect is not owed to anybody. Respect is earned. If all you do is copy-paste crap and have never formulated a proper argument, what have you ever done to earn any respect? And iyou behave like a total blowhard, never concede a debating point.

    So you’re demanding something that you never earned. You demand respect, but nobody here owes you any.

  313. What Planes?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  314. Rurik says:
    @TuneyLoons

    What Planes?

    where have you been?

    I’ve been wondering when you guys were going to show up?

    just goes to show how frantic they are to keep the lid on 911 when they go to the trouble of producing ‘there were no planes!’ videos

    ‘it was all the work of shape-shifting lizard people!!!!

  315. @Rurik

    Prove it up, Rurik. You are defending an untenable position. The plane videos all defy physical and aerodynamic laws. It is up to YOU to prove there were planes. Let’s see what you’ve got besides the standard Logical Fallacies.

    Thanks for being such a great illustration of Jonathan’s point is writing this piece.

    Who is “you guys” anyway?

  316. @Rurik

    Rurik, I wouldn’t be so dismissive of the no-planers. I also used to just assume that that was looney stuff that was put out by disinfo agents. Now I’m not sure at all. To be honest, I now have real doubts that the buildings were hit by the Boeing 767 airliners as claimed. For starters, it really does seem that the the Boeing 767 cannot even reach that speed at sea level anyway. Or, at the very least, it is certain that the plane, if it is going that fast, is going way beyond its normal operation limit. (At sea level, I mean. The planes do go that fast when they reach their cruising altitude of 30+ thousand feet, but there is very little air resistance at that altitude.) Also, as the video that TuneyLoons provides (which I have seen before) argues, the penetration of the planes into the building looks pretty iffy on basic physics grounds. The presenter, Ace Baker, presents a highly technical case for video fakery that I cannot vouch for completely. I would say watch it.

    All that said, I’m a bit hesitant to go so far into the discussion of the no-planer stuff because it is a secondary issue. And it could give people something to sink their teeth into. I mean, I am totally satisfied that a 100 ton plane can’t slam into a 500,000 ton building (of which 100,000 tons is structural steel) and cause it to disintegrate. The buildings were obviously blown up somehow and that’s always the primary point.

    But here is a point to consider: the only purpose of having planes in the narrative is to be able to frame the Arab patsies. Obviously, those guys had no ability to wire a building for demolition, so you need to be able to say they hijacked planes and flew them into the buildings. (Of course, the Arab patsies had no ability to do that either, but that’s the story they constructed.) So, anyway, it’s not important to actually have planes hit buildings. It’s just as good if you can convince the general public that planes hit the buildings. So IMHO the possibility that the plane hijackings were completely faked really seems worth considering, should not be dismissed out of hand. If we are sure that aircraft hit the buildings, well, maybe that is so, but were not the civilian airliners, the Boeing 767′s that are claimed. Could it have been missiles? That is, after all, what probably hit the pentagon.

    So, where I’m at is that I’m not sure about it and am very hesitant to go out on a limb saying there were planes or not. But I’ll go out on a limb and say this…. nowadays, whenever I get in a plane, I look around me. There’s like a couple of hundred seats, right? I’m sitting in one of them. Each seat is the same as mine. It has a seat belt with a metallic seat belt buckle. It has one of these trays that folds down. Somewhere in the plane is hundreds of other trays containing this crappy airline food and each tray has all these little plastic dishes and there are these plastic containers with condiments and other plastic stuff. The pouch in the back of the seat has this crappy inflight magazine… They give you a safety explanation (which nobody listens to, of course) but they say that underneath every seat is a life vest and there are oxygen masks that will come down if needed. (Of course, I never checked myself that there actually is a life vest under the seat, maybe somebody figured it was cheaper just to say there was one without putting one there! But I figure, okay, there probably really is a life vest under every seat.)

    What I mean to say, in short, is there’s all this SHIT! Hundreds of seats, hundreds of inflight magazines, hundreds of those little booze bottles, hundreds of life vests and oxygen masks. Oh, and they come round and pass out these little headphones in case you want to listen to the movie…

    I get on the plane, I look at all this shit, and I think to myself… On 9/11 what happened to all that shit? It all vaporized? Completely? Where is all that shit? Of course, then they try to tell you that all that shit vaporized, EXCEPT for one passport belonging to a hijacker that was found intact…. And there are commenters on this very page trying to tell you this is reasonable. All the rest of that shit vaporized, even everybody else’s passport as well, just that one (alleged) hijacker’s passport survived, pretty much completely intact…

    And that’s not getting into all the parts of the plane, every last one of which bears a unique serial number apparently.

    Now, all of the above reflections (Where is all that shit?) apply equally to the Pentagon and the Shanksville plane crash site, but also seem to apply to the twin towers.

    I’ve been wondering when you guys were going to show up?

    Rurik, I think you’ve got this wrong. I think TuneyLoons is offering this up in good faith. I think so.

    I think the “What Planes” video he linked is worth considering.

    But, as I said, I’m not really sure about this. What I am sure of is that the buildings were wired for controlled demolition and that it’s actually not a matter of primary importance whether Boeing airliners crashed into them or not.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Rurik
    , @Anonymous
  317. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Your whole point is that if fell on it’s own, unexpectedly due to fires. If that’s so, and the building fell unexpectedly, then how were these media outlets able to report on it before it fell?

    ok, so let’s for argument sake assume that you’re right and the BBC had advance knowledge. This admittedly would cast serious doubts on the proposition that the buildings came down as expected – ie, due to structural damage and the ensuing fires. The spotlight, however, I’m sure you’ll agree, would immediately turn to the competing proposition that the building was brought down by controlled demolition. Now, you previously confirmed that you’ve watched most of the video I linked to. Your comment was: “Some cool footage of controlled demolitions to be sure. But nothing much else except smears of the heroes like Richard Gage…”

    Rather than “nothing much,” the whole point of the video was to demonstrate what actual real world demolitions look like or, more importantly, sound like. Were you not struck by how very audible these controlled demolitions were? Were you not equally struck by how very less audible the collapse of WTC 7 was? Do you have a reasonable explanation for this difference? I’m all ears (pun intended).

    btw – The BBC were not the only ones who got it wrong that day. Here are a few more examples:

    CNN Reported at 11:07 am that Building 7 had collapsed at 10:45, or 15 minutes after the second tower collapse at around 10:30.

    Forbes magazine reported that “A car bomb exploded outside the State Department, according to State Department sources.”

    CBS News reported that as many as eight planes have been hijacked and only four have been accounted for.

    Other reporters said that Camp David had been hit by a plane.

    A lot of shabby reporting, to be sure.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  318. geokat62 says:

    So you’re demanding something that you never earned. You demand respect, but nobody here owes you any.

    Previous comment by Rurik:

    You’re an intelligent man with rational faculties. I’ve glimmered that over the months I’ve been participating here.

    Care to dance?

  319. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Team A wired the buildings. Now Team B flies remotely controlled planes. There is a possibility that Team B fucks up and misses one building (Certainly they could not count on the Arabs, so for this reason real hijackers must be excluded.) Additionally there would be a possibility that Team C that was recording and documenting the event to be used in media would miss to record the actual plane hitting one of the buildings. So if I there was technology that could generate a quasi-live footage with fake planes they would go with it and saved money by eliminating the Team B. The scenario would be full proof. Ace Baker seems to demonstrate that the technology, though not perfect, to generate fake plane footage in quasi-real time existed in 2001.

    No plane theory may have one weakness. Why they did not generate footage of plane hitting WTC-7? Or why did they kill the Flight 93 whether it was real or fake?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  320. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    OK JR,

    If you say so, then perhaps Looney is straight. I just have a problem with the ‘no plane’ thing. There again, it’s my way of processing info. To my eyes, those explosions looked exactly like I’d expect if a jetliner crashed into a building like the WTC. The impact, the fireball, all of it. As for the debris, I’m pretty sure they found a jet engine

    and some other hardware.

    But you’re right about finding the passport. That was a doozy. Also where are the black boxes (actually orange)? Which were all specifically designed to withstand that kind of thing, and would have had transponders on them so that they’d be able to find them. Not just from the twin towers, but from all the planes. Yet we’ve been privy to zero information out of any of them. Hmm.

    Like you, I have no idea what hit the pentagon, but it doesn’t look like a 767 did. Not that it matters all that much. All we need to know is that there must have been gobs of video recordings of what happened at the Pentagon, (perhaps some of the most surveilled real-estate on the planet), yet we’re allowed to see almost nothing. That’s all you have to know to know that they’re lying.

    Also you’re right that the Arabs needed to be the patsies. But whether or not any Arab “terrorists” were on those planes that did hit the towers (or anyone else for that matter), I don’t know. And also, talk about eyewitnesses, there would have been thousands of eyewitnesses and dozens of cameras trained on the towers after the first plane hit, which was fortuitously video taped as well.

    so for me the no plane thing is a disinfo distraction to make skeptics and truthers look silly.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  321. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    the whole point of the video was to demonstrate what actual real world demolitions look like or, more importantly, sound like

    yea, I noticed that, and then since there were lots of recorded explosions on 911, (not to mention witness testimony) they also tried to play it both ways, suggesting that the explosions heard on 911 were from other things and not the same exact kind of explosions that you clearly hear, (if, with the volume turned up) in the video

    {also it appears that some very state of the art military technology was used on 91. Stuff that makes steel beams vaporize into thin air}

    no one cares if somewhere they reported Godzilla coming out of the water and asking a New Yorker for a smoke- unless it really happened, which would have been pretty much as expected as building seven falling the way it did. So it was reporting on it and then getting it right that is an impossibility, not what was reported by mistake.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @geokat62
  322. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    “Stuff that makes steel beams vaporize into thin air”

    That one stumps me. Clearly, if the videos are legit, we see huge steel sections dissolving in free fall – http://911scholars.ning.com/photo/albums/free-falling-steel-sections-dissolving-to-dust

    I saw the results with my own eyes. There was nowhere near 200,000 tons of steel at GZ a week after the event.

    Thanks Rurik, your input is important!

    • Replies: @Rurik
  323. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You have a great discussion going here Jonathan; I am very thankful for this. It is a stand-out article on an outstanding site!

    I must insist that that the plane videos are primary evidence. If the official story says 767-200s did 500+ mph at sea level, the official story is debunked. It is not possible for the airframe to remain intact, let alone be controllable. That’s a real WOP-er!

    HAPPY 5TH FUKUSHIMA ANNIVERSARY EVERYONE.

    Tell people you love them.

  324. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    yea, I noticed that, and then since there were lots of recorded explosions on 911, (not to mention witness testimony) they also tried to play it both ways, suggesting that the explosions heard on 911 were from other things and not the same exact kind of explosions that you clearly hear, (if, with the volume turned up) in the video

    ok, but wouldn’t you expect to see and hear the sound of explosions prior to the initiation of collapse? Isn’t that what the video I linked to shows to be true in every single case of controlled demolition? So why were there no visible or audible evidence of explosions prior to collapse initiation of all 3 bldgs on that day?

    Here’s an excerpt from Chris Mohr’s article, Is there any scientific validity to the claims of 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracists about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings?:

    [MORE]

    WHAT ABOUT THOSE ACCOUNTS OF EXPLOSIONS IN THE TWIN TOWERS?

    I read 50 randomly selected accounts out of some 118 or so accounts from firefighters of explosions from the New York Times. None were of explosions before the actual collapse. Those accounts Gage found concentrated around the core and the basement where explosions from the jet fuel traveling down the elevator shafts caused several explosions and fireballs. Out of 5000 former and current FDNY 9/11 employees, only ten [that's 0.2%] have come out and said they believe bombs were placed in these buildings. Further, firefighters have personally told me that explosions in office fires are not uncommon. Here is a list of a few things that explode in an office fire:

    HVAC equipment including condensers and compressors
    Cleaning supplies
    CRT type TV’s and computer monitors.
    Large motors that have an oil reservoir for lube. (Elevator lift motors)
    Hydraulic pistons found in office chairs.
    Tires in vehicles
    Steam explosions when water hits a hot fire or molten aluminum
    Propane tanks

    If bombs were going off to create a precise controlled demolition, then there would be a pattern. Eyewitness accounts of explosions were random: fireballs, mere flashes of light, ground shaking with no other apparent effect. This is consistent with the kinds of random effects of fires spreading through buildings and down the elevator shaft. Eyewitness Philip Morell talked of explosive sounds like bombs in a 9/11 Mysteries video clip, but I went back to the complete original interview. The director cut out the part where he then explained that he ran over to the noise and discovered that the explosive sounds were actually from a crashing freight elevator, which did indeed create a tremendous crashing thud felt throughout the basement.

    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Rurik
  325. utu says:
    @geokat62

    By writing this: “Out of 5000 former and current FDNY 9/11 employees, only ten [that's 0.2%] have come out and said they believe bombs were placed in these buildings. ” the guy lost credibility. All 5000 were witnesses? Were they asked specifically if they heard explosions? Obviously he is in damage control business. Another shill just like you. Or maybe not. You might be just a useful idiot.

  326. Rurik says:
    @Anonymous

    thanks,

    but why are there two of you?

    are you LoonyTones and also TooneyLoons?

    • Replies: @TuneyLoons
  327. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    Geo,

    I read 50 randomly selected accounts out of some 118 or so accounts from firefighters of explosions from the New York Times. None were of explosions before the actual collapse

    you do all this research and yet it’s all so myopically distorted to an preordained agenda

    there are tones of video and eyewitness accounts of explosions before and during the collapses

    all you have to do is look

    • Replies: @geokat62
  328. @Rurik

    It’s a glitch in the matrix. :>

  329. @Rurik

    To my eyes, those explosions looked exactly like I’d expect if a jetliner crashed into a building like the WTC. The impact, the fireball, all of it. As for the debris, I’m pretty sure they found a jet engine

    One jet engine out of four (two in each plane) but John Lear (the son of Bill Lear of Lear Jet) claims that it’s the wrong kind of engine. That engine could have been dropped off. If there were some other plane parts found, they could have been planted as well. As I said before, I have this gnawing feeling that there really is a “Where’s all the shit?” sort of problem that is definitely also present with the Pentagon and Shanksville crash sites. Like a passenger plane just contains all this shit, and, like where is it all? (Not to mention the bodies of the passengers, for example, in the Shanksville case.) I mean, for example, compare any of those alleged crash sites to the photos that emerged from the Malaysian airlines plane that went down over Ukraine. Well, specifically:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=mh17+crash+site&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiojej8q7nLAhXJbBoKHShiDY0Q_AUIBygB&biw=1280&bih=633

    I mean, you look at those photos and the “Where is all the shit?” question seems more or less answered: All of the over the bloody place!

    So, I say, as outlandish as the no-planer thesis sounds initially, it could be a mistake to dismiss it out of hand. Basically, maybe, set oneself the task of proving to oneself that passenger planes really did crash into the buildings and see if you can prove it to yourself.

    Another thing that bugs me is the total penetration of the plane into the building, like leaving a plane-shaped cut-out in the building. Some people have referred to this as “cartoon physics”, like what happens in those old Wile E. Coyote/Road Runner cartoons. But the plane shaped cutout in the building seems to mean that the plane’s wings also penetrated into the building. I’ve heard various testimony or analysis that says that is impossible, that the wings should have just broken off. Now, that really rings true to me. The wings in particular are mostly engineered to be extremely light and aerodynamic, and are, apparently, only just strong enough to withstand whatever stress they are subjected to when flying, which is nothing like a collision with a building.

    So the claim is that the wings can’t penetrate the building, and in a real collision with a building like that, the wings would, I guess, just break off from the plane and simply fall to the ground, say. I don’t know for sure, but it makes sense intuitively to me. That the whole structure of the plane stays intact and penetrates the building in its plane shape? Surely, it makes more sense that the plane would break up, the wings just falling off, no?

    As for the Ace Baker “What Planes” video that Looney linked, I have watched it more than once in a the last couple of years and I am very interested in whether somebody can rebut the main thrust what the guy says. BTW, one warning I would make is that this Ace Baker is rather eccentric and, at one point, despite not being much of a singer, sings some song, and maybe this could be off-putting to some people. I would just say fast forward past any of his musical performances and just listen to the overall argumentation.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  330. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    there are tones of video and eyewitness accounts of explosions before and during the collapses

    all you have to do is look

    I don’t need to see tones of video… I just need you to link to just one video that clearly shows evidence of a controlled demolition – i.e., where we can clearly see and hear explosions prior to the initiation of the WTC 7 collapse, just as we clearly see and hear the explosions prior to the initiation of collapse of all those bldgs in the controlled demolition video I previously linked to.

    If you can produce this evidence, you will have convinced me that 9/11 was an “inside job.”

    • Replies: @Rurik
  331. @utu

    So if I there was technology that could generate a quasi-live footage with fake planes they would go with it and saved money by eliminating the Team B.

    Well, this is precisely the kind of reasoning that caused me to finally start suspecting that the no-planers might be on to something. If the technology does exist so that you can fake the planes hitting the towers, wouldn’t you use it? Surely, it’s easier and cheaper and so forth to do a fake video than to actually make a plane hit a tower for real, no? And that would have far fewer points of failure. Making a plane hit a building, many things could go wrong, but if you have a fake video….

    If the technology exists to fake it, then it seems to me that, operationally, all the arguments would be in favor of going with that, no?

    As for “all the witnesses”, I’m not sure about that. I’ve heard it said that it’s very easy to find somebody in New York who knows somebody who saw a plane hit a tower, but extremely hard (nigh impossible) to find somebody who saw it themselves. Probably some people say they saw it but then, on follow-up questioning, admit that they saw it on TV like the rest of us.

    At any rate, it looks like there are very few genuine eyewitnesses (maybe none!) who saw a plane hit a building. Curiously, our friend (using the term loosely) Wizard of Oz, claims that he was in NYC for two weeks in 2002 and met at least 5 people who had seen a plane hit a building with their own eyes (not on TV).

    http://www.unz.com/article/battling-the-matrix-and-freeing-oneself-from-the-roger-rabbit-mental-world/#comment-1335620

    I pretty much knew immediately that he was lying. I was certain of it. In particular, that Wizard guy does seem to be a pathological liar among other things. I immediately responded saying he was lying and he just walked away, didn’t insist vehemently that it was true or anything, like a normal person would do if the story was true. Didn’t reply at all.

    No plane theory may have one weakness. Why they did not generate footage of plane hitting WTC-7?

    Yeah, good point. I don’t know the answer. It seems like the whole WTC-7 thing is a total cock-up. I guess the best bet is that they were supposed to have footage of a plane hitting the building (either by a plane actually hitting the building or by faking it) but something went wrong, they didn’t manage to get that footage shown for some reason or other. Of course, the building was already prepped for demolition and they had to go through with it.

    But. you know, the other funny aspect of Building 7 is that when you watch the video of the building coming down and compare it with reels of other controlled demolitions, it’s like more perfect, clean, symmetrical, than just about any of the other CD’s! So, in the Jowenko video, this guy, a demolitions professional, is shown the video, not told where or when it took place, and he expresses his professional admiration. “Wow, those guys really know what they’re doing.”

    So I mean to say, the damnedest thing about it is that it’s not just a controlled demolition, it’s a perfect or near-perfect one! The specialists who executed it had a great pride in their work and executed a perfect CD when it would have made far more sense to do something sloppier, no? Because if your line afterwards is that this is the result of randomly burning fires, by God, you shouldn’t execute the most perfect, clean, symmetrical demolition ever!

    If you step back and look at this, it’s really ROTFL material, isn’t it?

    And then, to make matters even more hilarious, you now have these asshat clowns, shills or HIQIs or whatever the hell they are, like this Geo here — they find themselves in this absurd position of having to try to tell us that this perfectly symmetrical collapse is the result of uncontrolled fires! But obviously this is a demolition that has to be so precisely engineered and executed by specialists, and it’s so well executed that a top specialist expresses his professional admiration for it. And then the shills or trolls or whatever have to argue that this occurred from uncontrolled fires! It’s about like saying that all the text on this page is the result of monkeys hitting the keys on the keyboard randomly!

    But anyway WTC 7 was a total cock-up. The Kennedy assassination has a similar level cock-up. You know, the patsy was Lee Harvey Oswald and clearly the plan was that Oswald was not supposed to be taken alive. He was supposed to be shot trying to escape. But somehow, he was taken alive and then they had to engineer a hit while he was in custody. That’s the Jack Ruby story, right? So now they’ve got a story in which a lone nut decides to kill the president for no reason and then a second lone nut shows up and kills the first lone nut with no real motive. Not a lone nut gunman story, but a double lone nut story, where the two lone nuts are operating so close in time and space… A totally ridiculous, contrived story, but still less objectively absurd than this perfectly symmetrical collapse occurring from randomly spreading fires!

    • Replies: @TuneyLoons
    , @utu
  332. @Jonathan Revusky

    “As for “all the witnesses”, I’m not sure about that. I’ve heard it said that it’s very easy to find somebody in New York who knows somebody who saw a plane hit a tower, but extremely hard (nigh impossible) to find somebody who saw it themselves. ”

    This has been my exact experience!

    Certainly a commercial Boeing is not up to the task, and anything more robust could leave parts to be found by someone independent of the Operation. So they would have to fake it.

    Impossible Airplane Speed 9/11:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

    RIP Keith Emerson!

  333. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Witnesses to planes or no planes.

    How many milliseconds 400mph plane could be in the field of view for somebody on the street level in Manhattan who was looking just in the right direction? It s a narrow field of view. If there were real planes there would be not too many witnesses even in the case of the second plane when more people were already looking up in the general direction of WTC towers. For this reason people who claim that they know people who saw the planes are not credible.

    Huge popularity of Weather channels and local weather reporting is a very good indication that people trust TV more than their own eyes or they just prefer the TV reality to the actual reality. Somebody who looked and did not see a plane will persuade himself and rationalize that he could not see it but plane was there and the weaker individuals will even begin to see it in their newly constructed memories.

    On YT I saw a video where some reporter on the ground was arguing with the anchor of his TV station that he saw the explosion but did not see the plane while the anchor saw the plane in his video feed.

    No plane theory could be proven if a continuous video of the impact place existed. After the 1st plane the number of cameras pointed at the towers must have been large. But somehow there are not that many independent videos available. How many? This makes me think that films must have been confiscated though I haven’t heard of it. But still there is a chance that no plane video may exist somewhere.

  334. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    there really is a “Where’s all the shit?” sort of problem that is definitely also present with the Pentagon and Shanksville crash sites.

    completely different scenarios as I see them JR

    I’m convinced beyond any doubt that planes hit the towers. I saw them and I saw the explosions and I saw the holes they created. There was simply nothing about those planes crashing into the towers that I have any doubts about. Now if you were to suggest that those weren’t the same commercial jets that took off earlier in the day, but were rather specially equipped jets with navigation equipment build in, then yea, sure, I’d have no problem with that.

    But as for the Shanksville crash, that was bogus. No jet crashed at that site. There was no ‘let’s roll!’ heroics. The Shanksville jet (headed to building seven) was summarily shot out of the sky in one of the fuckups on that day. There were no bodies or luggage found because there was none on the jet. Same for the Pentagon. That was not the commercial jet that had been hijacked by a guy who couldn’t fly a Cessna. No. I don’t know what it was, but it certainly wasn’t what they say it was.

    I guess, just break off from the plane and simply fall to the ground, say. I don’t know for sure,

    come on now JR, they’re full of fuel, they have inertia. They’re fastened on, and the skin of the WTC tower is permeable

    http://image.wikifoundry.com/image/1/lGttb_XeLaV9PdLkdDk2Nw14825/GW410H526

    So I just don’t quite get the ‘no planes thing’. When I see the video, it all looks kosher to me. And then what is the alternative explanation? What about the videos? Are they suggesting that the video of the first plane hitting was a fake? What about the damage to the building? Faked? Are they suggesting it was missiles? But then someone might have video taped it, and then what?

    You know from what I understand the FBI went around to all the gas stations and convenience stores around the Pentagon on 911 and confiscated all of their video surveillance footage, just in case. But in NYC, there’s not a very good chance they’re going to get them all.

    But most of all, like I said, when I watch the video, they look to me exactly as they would if a jet were crashing into one of those towers. So I just don’t have an issue with the planes being there.

  335. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    where we can clearly see and hear explosions prior to the initiation of the WTC 7 collapse

    between one and two seconds you hear the low frequency thunderous sound of an explosion, then at three seconds the building starts to implode

    here it is again at 17 seconds in with some of the noise removed from the video’s audio

    more

    • Replies: @geokat62
  336. @Rurik

    “I’m convinced beyond any doubt that planes hit the towers. I saw them and I saw the explosions and I saw the holes they created. There was simply nothing about those planes crashing into the towers that I have any doubts about.”

    If you saw the planes hit the building, you wouldn’t need to be convinced, you would have seen it.

    I am very curious to hear a description of what you saw and heard in Lower Manhattan that day. You might convince me. Would you be willing to give it a try, my friend?

    Peace

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  337. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    The first video starts out with loud explosions, but you can’t tell when exactly they occurred in relation to the collapse initiation of WTC 7.

    The second (nothing really audible) and third (something audible) videos have YouTube commentary that acknowledge NIST has the same video footage, but without the blast sounds.

    I found the fourth video striking, where it shows all the flashes and windows blowing out, but somehow there is no trace of the initial blast sound that video three recorded.

    As for the fifth video, no evidence at all of blasts before the collapse initiation.

    Rurik, you’d really be prepared to sentence Suspect A in my previous comment to “life” in prison on the basis of this “evidence”? All I can say is, I hope I don’t have a look alike out there who commits murder, for which I’m later IDed as the sole suspect.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  338. Rurik says:
    @TuneyLoons

    I wasn’t there, I saw it in the videos. From multiple angles and multiple sources. All showing the same thing.

    Could they have faked such videos? Sure, in controlled circumstances, but this was NYC, and especially after the first plane hit (or planted bomb or nothing but just Hollywood illusions I suppose) then everyone was watching. People had cameras trained on the building as it was smoking. Many of these simple, everyday people caught the second plane hit with their own, privately owned video cameras.

    Have you seen the video of the first plane hitting?

    Do you think that video was faked too?

    And all the ones taken by amateurs, all faked?

    a lot of people have said that they saw pods on the bottom of the jets.. they’re all lying and just reading from a script? They’re all in on it too?

    Peace to you as well

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  339. @TuneyLoons

    If you saw the planes hit the building, you wouldn’t need to be convinced, you would have seen it.

    Well, I’m pretty sure he means he saw it on TV like the rest of us. (Over and over and over again….) We all did. The question is whether the footage we saw is real or there is the ability to fake it.

    I certainly never questioned that the video of the planes hitting the towers was real for well over ten years after it happened. I guess it just didn’t occur to me.

    I started looking at the ae911truth stuff in late 2011, a bit over ten years after the incident and I read a lot of the Truther literature, like David Ray Griffin and others, but all of that mainstream of Truther literature takes the planes story as given. Well, obviously, they all think the Arabs were patsies, and document that those guys did not have the skills to fly the planes anyway, so I guess the implication is that the planes were remote controlled somehow.

    Now, I just watched the video that TuneyLoons linked,

    and I’ve heard those claims before, that the planes, the Boeing airliners that is, cannot even fly that fast at sea level and I’ve never seen that rebutted. So if that is the case, it means that if planes did hit the buildings, they weren’t the Boeings.

    Well, look, to me, right now, just thinking out loud the bottom line is this:

    1. Bear in mind that this is a secondary issue. It’s clear enough that the buildings were blown up, because a 100 ton plane hitting the 500,000 ton building (of which 100,000 tons is structural steel) CANNOT really cause it to disintegrate. The buildings were blown up and I don’t think it takes a ph.D. from M.I.T. to realize that! Especially when there’s building 7 which is a dead giveaway as it was not hit by a plane anyway! So on some level the whole discussion could be a distraction.

    2. If planes did hit the twin towers, it probably (IMHO) was NOT the Boeing 767 jetliners. My previous comments about “Where is all the shit?” — I think that stands. A civilian airliner just has all this crap in there and there is none of it anywhere! So that problem could be addressed equally by positing that it was a military drone (because the military drone doesn’t have all the shit, like all the seats with life vests and all the miniature booze bottles and all the rest of it). But the “Where is all the shit?” problem is also addressed perfectly well by the more radical no-planer thesis as well!

    3. Speaking for myself, I have no way of ascertaining that the videos we saw over and over really were real videos of planes hitting buildings. I’ve seen all kinds of things in movies that looked real and were not, the Titanic sinking and so on, so why should I be so 100.000% sure that this footage is real? Moreover, I do reason that if the perpetrators had the capability to make fake videos AND the ability to get them shown on the MSM (over and over ad nauseam) why would they ever bother to make a plane crash into the tower for real? Why do it for real if you have the capacity to fake it? Just think about all the points of failure in the respective cases.

    So that’s where my thinking on this is. And also, I wonder why the mainstream of 9/11 truth is so adamant that these Boeing airliners really hit the buildings? My sense is that the no-planer theory is definitely worth looking at and also, that if the no-planers are wrong and planes really did hit buildings, it was NOT the Boeing 767′s.

  340. @Rurik

    there really is a “Where’s all the shit?” sort of problem that is definitely also present with the Pentagon and Shanksville crash sites.

    completely different scenarios as I see them JR

    Well, yes, in certain ways. To me, maybe the biggest difference is just all the massive amount of debris from the destroyed buildings. So, if you compare that, in particular, to the Shanksville crash, where it’s just an empty field basically, in that case, there really should be a lot of remains of all the crap from in the plane — hundreds of seats, seat belt buckles, the life vests under every seat (so they say) and all the trays with the plastic food and all of that… it should be visible… Any civilian airliner contains a huge amount of stuff. Aside from all the luggage. (And the cadavers of the people on the plane of course!) So when you look at photos of the MH17 crash site in Ukraine, you just see all this stuff strewn about and it basically makes sense, no?

    The thing is, I guess, that with the WTC towers, there is all this other debris, which is orders of magnitude more shit. I mean, you should have the remains of 500,000 tons of building. So maybe you could answer the “Where is all the shit?” question by saying it is all just buried under the other debris somehow, a massively greater amount of shit…. That doesn’t apply to the Shanksville or the Pentagon case. In the Pentagon case, there is a hole in the building but the entire building didn’t fall apart or anything, so it again makes perfect sense to ask “Where is all the shit?” especially when you compare it to what other real crash sites of civilian airliners look like. There are simply no photos that show the remains of a civilian airliner.

    Of course, the intermediate theory of it being a military drone plane of some sort, say, does basically address the “Where is all the shit?” issue, since that plane wouldn’t have all the stuff that a civilian airliner has, miniature booze bottles and life vests and all the rest of it, it’s just a bare bones plane, right? Also if it’s a drone aircraft, it has no passengers. No luggage…

    Same for the Pentagon. That was not the commercial jet that had been hijacked by a guy who couldn’t fly a Cessna. No. I don’t know what it was, but it certainly wasn’t what they say it was.

    Well, on that we are in agreement 1000%!

    And then what is the alternative explanation?

    Well, I would suggest you watch the Ace Baker “What Planes?” video and see what he’s arguing. TuneyLoons linked that earlier. I had seen it before.

    Are they suggesting that the video of the first plane hitting was a fake? What about the damage to the building? Faked? Are they suggesting it was missiles? But then someone might have video taped it, and then what?

    Well, the above-linked Ace Baker video basically argues that it’s all fake. The damage to the building was done by some sort of explosive rigging in the months prior, IIRC. That is the theory. No planes or missiles hit, just video fakery.

    I’m not 100% sure. I am very interested if anybody says they have a clear refutation of the Ace Baker arguments.

  341. @Rurik

    Many of these simple, everyday people caught the second plane hit with their own, privately owned video cameras.

    Are we 100% sure of that? Maybe these “simple, everyday people” were not that at all. Maybe they were shills and the footage that allegedly came from their private video cameras was faked.

    There were definitely shills on hand, fake witnesses. You seen this guy?

    That guy Mark Walsh is reciting lines! He is definitely a shill! There are other deconstructions of that footage up. Notice how, right behind this Walsh guy there is a black dude in a suit right behind him, watching intently, who seems to be that guy’s handler, probably making sure he hits all the talking points….

    a lot of people have said that they saw pods on the bottom of the jets.. they’re all lying and just reading from a script? They’re all in on it too?

    A lot of people? How many is that? They definitely had fake witnesses on hand planting the pre-approved story like that Mark Walsh guy in the video above. Maybe the whole thing about pods on the bottom of the jets is just a red herring they throw out there for people to waste time with.

    (NB. I’m not claiming I know for sure!)

    • Replies: @Rurik
  342. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    well I did just have a few minutes to take another cursory look at the ‘no planes’ video and still consider it utterly unconvincing.

    But I will take back my perhaps unfair characterization of Looney as a shill. I guess he’s possibly sincere, and who can blame him with all the other lies and treachery they’ve treated us all to.

    One thing I saw that I have a different take on is the engine. They say it wasn’t the one used for the jet that took off from that airport, and was probably put there later as a ruse. But I don’t think the plane that hit the tower was the same one that had the passengers in it. That’s why they had to fly them around for a couple hours, to land those planes with the passengers on them, and then send the specially outfitted ones with navigational equipment to be able to fly them remotely. Those remote controlled jets were the ones that used the engine found on the street in New York. Which also explains many other things, like why the pilots didn’t radio that they’d lost control or passengers used their cell phones at low altitude. (there were none on the jet)

    But as to the ‘no planes’- not for me. What about the scars on the buildings that looked like a jet had just blasted in? And I have no problem not seeing jet parts in the hole because of the speed the jet was going and the fire ball and how the debris would have shot inside with the main force of the jet’s impact.

    But then again, as you say, this is all just academic side stuff. We know they did it and lied about it because we know (Geo notwithstanding) that building seven was a controlled demolition and that means so were the other two. Which all makes sense when you think about it. Then the anomalies with Shanksville and the Pentagon and the chimp in the classroom for 20 minutes and the put options and the “Jew calls” and the destruction of all the evidence and the coincidences of lucky Larry nor any of his family or several other key people who would have been at the towers that morning and all the other mountains of evidence really are not that important. We know they did it and we know why. Their “new Pearl Harbor like event’ to get Americans duped into fighting myriad wars for Israel, just like general Clark laid out.

    Hopefully others (like Geo) will look at all of it and make up their own minds. If enough people do, then one day we might get that 100th monkey.

    cheers

  343. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Hopefully others (like Geo) will look at all of it and make up their own minds.

    Speaking of making up their minds, as I was flipping through the pages of Ryan Mackey’s “The Great Internet Conspiracy, The Role of Technology and Social Media in the 9/11 Truth Movement,” I came across this interesting information:

    The Conspiracy Hangover

    “Dude, I said that in 2005. I said that in 2005, you guys on the Internet are still bickering over things I said six years ago! … You have no life. You have no life. You have no life.” – Dylan Avery, 11 September 2011

    Naturally, there is a downside to the mnemonic appeal used by the Truth Movement. Now that the conspiracy theory has peaked, many Truthers find it incredibly difficult to walk away, or even to change their beliefs. Their behavior in these final stages of the conspiracy theory provides additional evidence of mental fixation brought about and encouraged by the Internet. This fixation can go far beyond the usual limits of stubbornness or even obsessive-compulsive behavior. If anything, it more closely resembles an addiction.

    Dylan Avery gives us a particularly crisp example. After the debacle of Loose Change: Final Cut, he announced his departure from the Truth Movement, intending to move on to more ordinary film projects. At the time, there were those who doubted he had ever been a Truther to begin with, instead suspecting he had merely exploited the Movement to make a name for himself. Likewise, there were skeptics who argued he had only been in it for the money, and was now departing after his gamble had failed. But whatever his true motivation, it was called The Final Cut long before it flopped – come success or failure, it was time to move on.

    Except he returned soon afterward. In September 2009 he created yet another version, called Loose Change: An American Coup, which was no more successful than its predecessor. And in September 2011 he recanted again, telling Jeremy Stahl that he was now merely focused on why the Government hadn’t prevented the (presumably legitimate) terrorist attack, a position completely incompatible with tales of missing jetliners, explosives, and international media complicity featured in his movies. He remarks that he had been “sucked in” much more than he should have been. Later, when asked in person to clarify his new ideas at the tenth anniversary memorial, he merely stated that he believed in a cover-up, and beyond that, “what I believe doesn’t matter… I don’t use ‘inside job.’” The conclusion we draw from this portrait is that he still hasn’t escaped, even though he seems to know he should.

    I think this quote from vocativ’s “The Rapid Rise and Fall of Dylan Avery,” says it all:

    And though questions still linger about 9/11,… he no longer tortures himself with speculation. “In my truly angry times, in 2005 or 2006, if you asked if the Bush administration planned the attacks, I would have said, ‘Fuck yeah’.”

    But now?

    “I don’t think Bush could plan a bowl of cereal,” he says.

  344. @Rurik

    But I don’t think the plane that hit the tower was the same one that had the passengers in it.

    Well, then you seem to be saying (and do correct me if I’m wrong!) is that:

    (a) The scheduled flights took off with the passengers in them as claimed, i.e. Flight 11 and Flight 175.
    (b) They were diverted somewhere (though, we’re not too sure about the details)
    (c) They were swapped with two completely separate aircraft that were flown into the towers, probably pilotless drones of some sort.

    Now, what I would ask you is simply this: Why do you need steps (a) and (b)? Why not just cut straight to step (c) and have your drones fly into the buildings? What I mean is, is it possible that the two flights in question were just completely fake, never happened? I know that’s mind boggling (just as the clear likelihood that what happened at Sandy Hook was a hoax) but that seems no more problematic than step (b) above, where we have to explain what happened to the actual flights. Step (b) seems to require just as much trickery as just faking all the flights in the first place! So, to me, it seems very likely that Flights 11 and 175 are just phantom flights that never occurred.

    As for the engine they found being the wrong kind of engine, well…. that’s consistent with it being planted and it’s consistent with it being a different kind of aircraft that actually hit the building.

    But, again, the surprising thing I note is that the main stream of the 9/11 Truth community just assumes that the civilian airliners that they claim flew into the towers actually did. If they didn’t, we have two logical possibilities,

    (I) Some other aircraft flew into the towers
    (II) It’s all video fakery, as Ace Baker claims.

    And again, if the technology really exists (and existed at that time) to just fake it, wouldn’t (II) be the way to go?

    But I think we do converge on the basic point that it really doesn’t make that much difference! Stepping back and looking at the big picture, the whole purpose of the exercise either way is to convince us that these Arabs hijacked those Boeing jets with all the people on them and flew them into the buildings. If that didn’t happen, and is thus a hoax, what does it matter whether the hoax was perpetrated by flying an actual drone aircraft into the building or just doing it with video fakery? The fact definitely remains that a plane hitting one of these towers should not cause what then happened. Sure, getting hit by a plane would cause some damage to the building but it’s just not anywhere near enough to cause the entire structure to disintegrate! And, as you say, we have building 7 as the real dead giveaway. It’s not hit by a plane and just implodes like the other two!

    Which also explains many other things, like why the pilots didn’t radio that they’d lost control or passengers used their cell phones at low altitude. (there were none on the jet)

    Well, the pilots didn’t radio because there weren’t any pilots! Either there were no pilots because the planes were pilot-less drones or there were no pilots because there were no planes at all! Either way, take your pick!

    Same deal with the passengers. No passengers either… No hijackers, no magic passports, no magic cell phone calls. Nothing. Either way, it’s all bullshit. Total hoax.

    • Replies: @utu
  345. @geokat62

    You know, stepping back from all of this a bit and looking at it, this “debate” between the two of you, Geokat and Rurik, it really illustrates some of the basic concepts I was trying to get at in my article, in particular, the section on Retaining the Initiative.

    I mean, here you have Geokat, the HIQI with his Roger Rabbit narratives, and you have Rurik, the reality-based person. The specific issue at hand here is WTC building 7. Right in my essay, I embed the video of the Dutch demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, who, when shown the video of building 7 going down, says: “Yep, that’s a controlled demolition”. He’s asked whether there is any other possible explanation and he says: “Nope.” Not exact quotes, but that’s basically it, right?

    Rurik has also relinked that one and maybe some other similar things. But the way it stands is that Geokat’s pose is that Rurik has yet to demonstrate to him, Geokat, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. (CD) He keeps asking for more proof.

    Now, one might ask what more proof he needs than a demolitions expert saying that the thing is a CD??!! Is Geokat really saying that he is better able to identify a CD than a specialist in that domain? Does that make sense? I mean, really, if he is going to say that this is insufficient, it looks like it’s time for him to answer some questions. For example:

    Okay, if you still say it wasn’t a CD, despite the fact that it looks so much like a CD that a professional demolitions guy says that it’s a CD, then tell us what is this phenomenon that looks exactly like a CD but is not a CD? Does this phenomenon have a name? When has this ever occurred before?

    But, Rurik, instead of putting it to this guy and asking him these questions, he goes off and tries to find even more evidence that it was a CD to satisfy Geokat.

    And now, big surprise! The further evidence that Rurik provides is insufficient for Geokat. Wow, what a total surprise! I never would have expected that! (Roll eyeballs)

    Look at all this quibbling crap!

    The first video starts out with loud explosions, but you can’t tell when exactly they occurred in relation to the collapse initiation of WTC 7.

    The second (nothing really audible) and third (something audible) videos have YouTube commentary that acknowledge NIST has the same video footage, but without the blast sounds.

    I found the fourth video striking, where it shows all the flashes and windows blowing out, but somehow there is no trace of the initial blast sound that video three recorded.

    As for the fifth video, no evidence at all of blasts before the collapse initiation.

    You see, this is just a game. The basic idea here is that Geokat never has to answer any question himself. He’ll just keep asking more questions and bringing up more little quibbling nonsense and never concede the point.

    But if you ask him something, he won’t answer. Try it. Ask him: “Now, Geokat, I’ve answered your question as best I can. Now, would you please outline what is, in your opinion, the strongest evidence available that these attacks were orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden, from Afghanistan?”

    I’ve asked this rat bastard that question at least half a dozen times and he’s never answered. He claims that he won’t answer that (or any other question from me) because I never accepted his “Rules of Engagement”, i.e. I never promised not to tell this asshole that he’s an asshole. But since you are willing to respect him (or pretend to, I dunno…) he doesn’t have that excuse with you, so you can ask him the question.

    But, look, the point is that you can’t really accept a situation in which the other guy is always asking you to prove something and NEVER has to demonstrate anything himself!

    I mean, for crying out loud, you’ve shown this guy testimony from a demolitions expert saying that the thing is a CD and then you act like he’s acting in good faith when he asks for even more proof!!??

    Surely you should know that, whatever proof you offer, it’s always going to be insufficient. That’s his basic schtick, right? And, also, you know that if you ask him the most basic question to defend his side of the debate, he’ll just walk away! Go ahead, try it. Try this:

    “Geo, could you explain in plain English how uncontrolled fires can cause the building to collapse symmetrically? It really seems to me that, with uncontrolled fires, you’d get a very asymmetrical result because the various elements would never heat up in an even manner… Can you help me with this?”

    Rurik, you professed that you liked my essay, but do try to understand it fully! You can’t just adopt a reactive position and scramble trying to respond to such unreasonable requests for proof, from a guy, who if you ask him the most basic question for proof of the official story, will just walk away! Can’t you see that?

  346. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Discussion here forced me to think through the issues related the no plane hypothesis (NPH). It is the most elegant scenario. It seems to be full proof as it does not require orchestration of occurrences in the physical world which as we know often is not cooperative. For this reason it cannot fail. On the other hand the NPH requires almost complete control of media. There must have been videos of explosions w/o planes (particularly in the case of the 2nd “hit”). How these videos were handled?

    The physics of planes penetrating towers is really questionable. This for me is the strongest “evidence” for the NPH. However I cannot resolve that issue w/o the access to a sophisticated finite element model that simulates the collision. A finite element model could be developed to calculate the physics of the collision. However nobody in the Truth Movement has done it. The models done by government sponsored institutions (NIST, MIT,…) cannot be trusted and possibly they were just animation of the desired outcome and not the actual simulations of the physics.

    The NPH does not require the actual existence of Flights 11, 175 and 93. Officially no black boxes were recovered for Flights 11 and 175. No parts were recovered. No videos of people boarding these planes nor videos of people awaiting their arrivals were shown. Very few interviews with family members by local TV stations. What about reports of the memorial services by local TV stations?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  347. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    I didn’t need to see the Danny Jowenko video to see that building seven was obviously a controlled demolition. Obvious to me because that’s how my mind works.

    Hey, Rurik. I just wanted to address the Danny Jowenko video. As you know, I’m still wading through Ryan Mackey’s paper “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking,” but here’s the relevant excerpt from (pp.115-116):

    Resemblance to a “Planned Implosion”

    Dr. Griffin states, with no support or references, that the collapse of WTC 7 was “a perfect imitation of a planned implosion – which is what NIST will have to claim.” Dr. Griffin, having no training in demolition or even the physical sciences, is not in a position to make this statement, particularly given the obvious ways in which WTC 7 was not a “perfect imitation” – such as being on fire for hours beforehand.

    In order to estimate whether or not the WTC 7 collapse did resemble a controlled demolition, since this is a subjective quantity, we must turn to demolition experts for their opinions. The author is aware of only one demolition expert who has answered in the affirmative, namely Danny Jowenko (of Jowenko Explosieve Demoltie B.V). In a series of interviews, he was shown video footage of the WTC 7 collapse taken from a single side, and concluded that “this was obviously a building that’s been imploded.” To the best of the author’s knowledge, Mr. Jowenko still believes this to be the case, even though several individuals have forwarded additional information to him, such as other camera angles, firefighter comments, and videos of the smoke and fires.

    Jowenko is, however, contradicted by other demolitions experts, including those who have accessed much more information than a single video angle. In particular, Brent Blanchard writes the following:

    Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area… No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument.

    Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, “We were all standing around helpless… we know full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn’t know if another plane was coming… but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went.”

    Because there is some difference of opinion, we will give Dr. Griffin partial credit – visually, the collapse of WTC 7 may have resembled a controlled demolition, at least from some perspectives. However, the collapse could not be a “perfect imitation.” The resemblance is limited strictly to the video, and contradicted by vibration, audio, and preparation, in the opinion of demolitions experts. Such a limited resemblance could quite plausibly be explained by other collapse mechanisms. As a result, this cannot be construed as proof of a controlled demolition.

    • Replies: @TuneyLoons
  348. Rurik says:

    And again, if the technology really exists (and existed at that time) to just fake it, wouldn’t (II) be the way to go?

    no JR, IMHO, because there were simply too many possibilities for someone to be videotaping the second explosion with no plane preceding it. Also if it were so easy to just fake it, then why didn’t they fake building seven?

    (as I think someone has already mentioned)

    I don’t know if they faked the passengers on the jets. There were real people who were alive before 911, but dead the next day. People like Betty Ong for instance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Ong

    she and many others were known people who disappeared after that day, presumably vaporized in the fireballs, but I don’t know.

    But this is all a side issue. The main issue being that they perpetrated that false flag to get us to attack countries in the Middle East that Israel wanted crushed. And their little charade has fallen apart at the seams. Now it’s just a matter of one of these jokers getting on the wrong plane and getting arrested in some country like Uruguay or Uzbekistan or something and being charged with murder. And then perhaps we’d finally have a real investigation. But then again, I suspect that Ehud Barak would start a nuclear war rather than do the perp walk. So there’s that.

    As for Geo. (Hi Geo ; ) ‘I suspect that there are some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week’. And I suspect that I’ll never be able to break the iron sphere around Geo’s protective armor no matter how hard I try. It doesn’t make Geo thick or stubborn, just guarded I suspect. My own sister is impervious to any and all arguments. Can not go there. No way. She’s not stupid by any means. Sharp as a razor’s edge. But unwilling emotionally to entertain the possibility that her government could be that psychopathic. That, in a word, evil.

    And that is quite a leap. Sort of what those guy in those jets must have been gob-smacked when their commander ordered them not to assist the USS Liberty. As it sunk in, that those sailors and civilians were being sacrificed for some treacherous design of the politicians.

    I suspect that for some people, accepting the actual level of evil that has permeated our government would cause them to go insane. It would collapse the foundation of their world like a controlled demolition. With everything that was there a minute ago gone, and now all that’s left is smoking ruins and stares into the abyss. For some people, that’s asking a lot.

  349. @geokat62

    Here’s some facts and my thoughts about WTC7:

    Jowenko was surprised at the precision of the flawless execution of the demolition. On July 16th, 2011, Danny Jowenko died in a one-sided car accident, a frontal collision with a tree, in the village of Serooskerke, The Netherlands.

    The roofline building was in free-fall acceleration with no resistance, not even air resistance, for 2.5 seconds.

    Before WTC7 the tallest high rise ever to be imploded was JL Hudson’s department store at 33′.
    WTC7 was of course 47 stories. Not even the experts had dropped a building this tall, so it couldn’t be called conventional in light of it being the tallest structure imploded.
    (The Twins could never be considered a conventional CD, because of their immense height, and there unique tube within tube design.)

    Usually, imploded structures fall at less than free fall, since some of their KE is used to break the structure.

    It is just conjecture on my part, but I have considered that a large cavity may have been excavated under WTC7 and it was dropped like a peg in a hole. None of the debris reached the sidewalk across one way streets on any side on the building. Now, the commercial Demolition companies had never felled a building of this height, and the military seem not so concerned about collateral damage — their expertise is using massive explosive power to just blow shit up.

    I have studied this event obsessively for over a dozen years, and rededicating myself to proper scientific analysis has been a ray of good to come out of a horrendous atrocity, and the use of that atrocity by our government to commit vastly greater atrocities.
    I still have more questions than answers, especially about what could have possibly turned most of the 200,000 tons of high grade steel in WTC 1 & 2 into ashen dust. There was generously 20% of the steel in the resulting pile of 1 or 2 stories max. Building 7′s pile was 4 or 5 stories and contained much large debris that was recognizable as the outer walls of the building laid over the top.

    WYC7 was a glaring WTF! The list of tenants included the US Secret Service, NY Office of Emergency Management, SEC, and the CIA. Obviously, it was a very highly secured government building, so who would be able to gain access to rig it? (If you guessed one of the above tenants, you would would be on the right track.)

    Thanks to you all for keeping this discussion going. It is very high quality, and it is important that we learn to discern the difference between the cartoon news and reality, since we face more complex problems each day.

  350. @Rurik

    no JR, IMHO, because there were simply too many possibilities for someone to be videotaping the second explosion with no plane preceding it.

    I don’t find this objection that decisive at all. For starters, nowadays, just about everybody is walking around with a video camera in their pocket. Back in 2001, very few people owned a video camera at all, let alone had one in their pocket! Certain things are hard to get away with now that were common back then. Like a lot of the police abuse that we see now was going on back then, but we didn’t have everybody with a video camera, right? So, anyway, you can’t look at this as if it was happening now.

    Another point is that we are looking at this with the benefit of hindsight. We know that a second plane flew into a second building (or that’s the story.) The people living it in real time, even if they knew that a plane had flown into one building, had no reason to think that, shortly afterwards, a second plane was going to fly into the other building! Now, it’s true that somebody could be filming the first building since it was on fire and the second building would be in the frame, but my sense of things is that probably most people would have close-up focus on the fire burning in the first building and would likely not include the second one in the shot.

    BUT, all of the above is not the really big point. Here’s the thing: Suppose that suddenly there was video footage available that showed the building exploding with no plane hitting it. What would happen? Would the MSM even show it? Can you imagine all the shills coming out of the woodwork arguing that the video doesn’t prove anything, that it is faked somehow… Like, do you think that if such a video were suddenly available that Geokat here would concede the point? I don’t think so. He’d just be pulling more bizarre specious arguments out of his ass. And that would be what the entire MSM would do as well.

    Look at some of the debate here. We have the testimony of a demolitions expert saying that building 7 is a controlled demolition! That’s not enough. 2300 professional architects and engineers…. doesn’t matter… not enough. It’s just a “handful”. Do they ever say what number would be enough? Of course not! NO NUMBER WOULD EVER BE ENOUGH!

    Or, for example, there were reports that a number of the alleged hijackers were alive and well living in the Middle East. Should we investigate this. No, never mind!

    You see, the way these Deep State operations work is that they fix the story, pretty much the same day that it happens. There has been no time for any investigation or fact gathering at all, but they say this is what happened. Oswald did it. Bin Laden did it. And then the story never changes. It doesn’t matter what evidence comes out later. The story doesn’t change. They just keep bulling on.

    Here is an example that came to my attention some years back. The other Kennedy assassination, the younger brother RFK. The patsy was a Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan. (Actually, a Palestinian Christian it so happens, just to forestall any BS about Islam…) The guy’s alleged murder weapon is a gun that holds 8 rounds. That’s it. There’s an audio recording that became available, was analysed, and there are 14 shots fired. Moreover, there is expert testimony from acoustics experts that there were two separate guns firing in the audio recording. So the whole lone nut gunman story is out the window since there were more than 8 shots fired in close succession and his pistol only holds 8 rounds.

    Now, is that rocket science? Does the fact that this proves there were other gunmen present create “reasonable doubt” about Sirhan’s guilt? I’d say damn right it does!

    I just googled this up again: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.assassination

    So that is 8 years ago at this point. You think they let Sirhan out of prison by now? Take a guess! That poor bastard is 71 years old, still in prison for something that happened when he was 24! Shit, even if he did it, they should parole him by now. No, he’ll die in prison, it seems.

    Not only is this not rocket science, it’s as far from rocket science as imaginable. (Can you count past 8?) Now, what’s interesting about this is that once you understand how this shit works, you can actually draw some reasonably solid conclusions. Like, I am pretty sure that Sirhan’s gun did not contain live ammo. Think about it. He’s the patsy. You’ve got him in some drug-induced hypnosis so he doesn’t remember anything even to this today. You walk him in there and maybe he’s firing his gun sort of randomly, but if he’s just a patsy and the real assassins are other people (which is obvious pretty much from the fact of the number of shots and the number of guns) then why would you give the patsy live ammo? Think about it! Almost certainly he was firing blanks! I’d bet dollars to doughnuts on that. (Or the gun just wasn’t loaded at all, even with blanks. Just saying… Not that it matters that much.)

    Look, that may seem like a long tangent to get into, but my point is that, once these bastards establish their story, it doesn’t matter what new evidence comes to light. They just keep bulling on with the story that they told from the very first day. So, if by some chance, there is video from some amateur cameraman that comes to light that completely contradicts their story, it’s not decisive to them. They just keep going. The people behind these things keep getting away with it, so they can get pretty audacious.

    Also if it were so easy to just fake it, then why didn’t they fake building seven?

    Yeah, this strikes me as a somewhat stronger objection frankly. Obviously if you can make fake video footage of two planes hitting two buildings, why not do fake video of the third plane getting hit? Well, that must have been the plan, one would think, but all I can say is that, clearly they screwed up somewhere and didn’t have the video, or couldn’t use it.

    Clearly, whether you believe in the no-plane theory or not, WTC 7 is a monstrous cock-up from the POV of the perpetrators. Something did not go according to plan and then they had to improvise. So some very sloppy stuff happens that really lays bare the nature of the plot. In particular, this Jane Standley woman on the BBC announcing the collapse of the building like 20 minutes before it comes down. That’s total FUBAR.

    I’m pretty sure that what happened is that she was supposed to be saying something like: “Building 7 has suffered major damage and many people think it is about to collapse”. The idea is that they are sort of planting in people’s minds the idea that it was expected, normal, for this building to just collapse. But, what happened was that instead of saying that, she said that the building had already collapsed! Maybe it was her error, or it was somebody behind the scenes who wrote the text and she just read it. Same difference. That hardly matters.

    If you look at the JFK assassination, there is a major cock-up, because clearly the plan was that Oswald was going to die the very same day, probably the cover story would be that there was shootout and he was killed. But Oswald was taken alive and then they had to improvise something. And there you get this outrageous second hit, the Jack Ruby thing.

    But look, the real real point here is that the people behind this stuff are psychopaths. Well, I’m reluctant to get into the psychobabble, but these are not regular people. So for a normal person, there is an outrageous level of audacity and brazenness in these things that is hard to fathom. I think, frankly, that this is the biggest barrier to considering the no-planes theory seriously because, for a normal person, it is something of such staggering brazenness (chutzpah anybody?) that it is hard to get one’s head around. Make a fake video of planes crashing into buildings and have that shown on the TV and say it’s real? And then blow up the buildings and say that the buildings blew up from the (non-existent) planes??!! (Well, actually, to give the devil his due, it is f***ing brilliant!)

    The thing is that even if there were real planes, it’s already mind-blowing. They’re claiming that a 100 ton plane hits a 500,000 ton building and causes it to just totally disintegrate! And they can get NIST and all these other people to sign on to that???!!!

    Anyway, planes, no planes, doesn’t matter that much. It’s a red herring. The buildings were blown up.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @alexander
  351. @Rurik

    There were real people who were alive before 911, but dead the next day. People like Betty Ong for instance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Ong

    Rurik, this note I am writing right now…. I am a bit reluctant to write it, since I am wary about giving people ammunition to catalogue me (and us, basically) as some sort of kook. But, on consideration, fine, let them call us kooks….

    This Betty Ong woman…. I never looked into this before, you just brought it up, that’s why… I just looked at this wikipedia page you link above and also googled her… and….

    Are we sure this is a real person?

    Look, for example, at the biography section on the wikipedia page. Well, specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Ong#Biography

    That’s the woman’s biography???? She was born (in 1956) and then she died (in 2001, on 9/11). That’s her biography. Nothing in between!!!??? She was 45 years old at the time of her death, had no children, was never married. (Despite being a fairly attractive woman if you look at the photos available.)

    There is a Betty Ann Ong Foundation right here: http://www.bettyong.org/ which (surprise, surprise!) requests donations. The foundation is devoted to child obesity, which is an epidemic admittedly, the first lady is very concerned about it as well…. So, to put this in non-PC terms, this foundation exists to help little fat kids, teach them to eat their veggies… and has a special summer camp for them…. Just look at that site, man.

    The late Betty Ong had an older sister, Cathie Ong Herrera, who is the founder and president of the Betty Ong Foundation. Cathie has a linkedin profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/cathie-ong-herrera-448115b3?trk=prof-samename-name on which the only professional experience she has listed is that she has been president of the aforementioned Betty Ong Foundation for the last 12 years. That’s what this woman does, man, lives off the fact that her sister was on a flight and made a phone call and is therefore a great heroine. Oh, except that the phone call never happened, it’s pretty clear… and most likely the flight never happened… so this is all based on a fictitious event…

    Anyway, I pointed out the rather skimpy biography of Betty Ong on Wikipedia. Here is the page on the site of the Betty Ong Foundation. http://www.bettyong.org/BettyOng.htm

    Look, Rurik, guys… do tell me if I’m going nuts. Does this Betty Ong look like a real person? This sister of hers runs this foundation and has this description of her late sister on there and it’s as if she never knew the person! It’s like some priest reciting a eulogy at a funeral for some person he never knew! She was a fine person, had wonderful personal hygiene, always smelled pretty nice…

    I mean, did this woman have any hobby whatsoever. Did she play tennis or another sport? Did she sing in a choir or master a musical instrument? Was she more outdoorsy or did she just like to stay home and read books? There is no mention of any studies she did that could be verified, like where she went to high school. She is a Chinese ethnic born in San Francisco, grew up there… hmm…

    Again, I look at this and don’t get the feeling that Betty Ong is a real person. But I don’t know for sure. Guys, look at this. What do you think?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  352. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Mr. Revusky, I really enjoy reading your arguments.

    Yes, you must fix story vera early and then stay on the story. The story writers definitively have lots of chutzpah. And no scruples to dehumanize and demonize the enemy. They know that stories win wars. The ones with worse stories are defeated.

    Interesting article about Nazi Germany cinema:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/ministry-of-illusion-film-in-the-third-reich/

    Comparing to British and American propagandas Japanese and German propagandas were still in kindergarden. I guess Germany and Japan did not have that many “psychopaths” to run it.

  353. @utu

    Discussion here forced me to think through the issues related the no plane hypothesis (NPH). It is the most elegant scenario. It seems to be full proof as it does not require orchestration of occurrences in the physical world which as we know often is not cooperative.

    Yeah, my position is increasingly congealing that, if it was technically feasible (at that point in time, 2001) to fake the videos, then surely that is what they would have done! The possible points of failure in terms of actually getting planes to hit buildings as opposed to making a fake video… there is no comparison!

    So, I guess that, to convince me that NPH is wrong is equivalent to convincing me that it was technically impossible to fake the videos.

    On the other hand the NPH requires almost complete control of media.

    Well, the overall operation, independently of NPH or not, requires very great control over the mainstream media message. Just look at it. The very same day, with no proof whatsoever, they are all saying “Osama Bin Laden” and “Al Qaeda” in unison. Had anybody ever heard those names before?

    But specifically, they need to have moles in the appropriate places who can be relied on to get the fake videos shown. But I don’t think that should stretch our credulity particularly…

    There must have been videos of explosions w/o planes (particularly in the case of the 2nd “hit”). How these videos were handled?

    As I said, to Rurik, I guess that’s the strongest objection to NPH. Now, I don’t think that the conspirators have complete control over the media. They have moles within the main media organizations who work for them, that is clear enough. That is how they plant the fake video to get shown at the appropriate time. I guess if there is video footage that shows what really happened, the same moles have to be active to suppress it, destroy it (better) or make sure it’s not shown. But look, we have building 7 going down in an obvious controlled demolition. How often do they ever show that in the MSM? In fact, how many people in the general public even know that a third building went down?

    At some point, ae911truth (I think it was them) bought space on billboards to tell people there was a third building, right? So that they need to do that shows you that the people behind this have a lot of power to prevent incriminating videos from being shown!

    The physics of planes penetrating towers is really questionable.

    Yeah, unlike Rurik, I in particular have problems with the wings penetrating the buildings. It really seems to me that the wings should just break off from the fuselage of the plane and fall to the ground. The plane maintains its plane shape and penetrates the building leaving a plane-shaped cutout!!!??? Yeah, okay, that’s what the videos show! But is that really possible??!!

    Also, there is the problem of the velocity of the planes at sea level. It really does appear that the Boeing airliners cannot fly that fast at sea level! So either you get into theories about specially outfitted planes… I saw on one blog a guy claiming that the planes were outfitted with specially powerful engines… they were souped-up Boeings! I have an easier time finally believing in the video fakery than that they somehow souped-up the planes. The problem on these sorts of things is that they can’t test it in advance, can they? When did they test these souped-up Boeings? So all this shit has to work the very first time you use it?! And there is no equivalently big building to do a dry run on, right? Heck, even if there were, you’d destroy your specially souped-up plane trying it out and have to put together another one….

    Really…. if it is technically feasible to fake the videos, clearly that is by far the best option, surely…. I think the biggest problem with the NPH is that it is just hard for people to get their heads around the sheer audacity of it!

    The models done by government sponsored institutions (NIST, MIT,…) cannot be trusted and possibly they were just animation of the desired outcome and not the actual simulations of the physics.

    I think they’re just complete and utter bullshit. Anybody faced with trying to tell you how a 100 ton plane crashes into a 500,000 ton building and causes it to disintegrate, is somebody tasked with making up a load of bullshit. And the people who accepted said task are major league bullshitters. It doesn’t matter how many ivy league credentials they have. And building 7 collapsing in a perfectly symmetrical way from fire — that, as I said above, is a total flying pigs story!

    That’s the LPM, the Ludek Pachman moment that I mention in the article. Ludek could not believe that the people in question were just lying blatantly, telling you that pork is bad for you one day and good for you the next. But they were! There are people who just find it unbelievable that NIST or super-prestigious MIT could be just lying so blatantly. Well, they need their LPM, man…. specifically, MIT is so hooked into the military industrial complex that… but anyway, there are people who will say anything for a few bucks. Not everybody, of course, but they can always find people who will. And the rest of the people stay quiet because they know what’s good for them…

    The NPH does not require the actual existence of Flights 11, 175 and 93.

    Well, some intermediate theory, in which the buildings were hit by planes, but not by commercial airliners, also does not require the actual existence of the flights in question. But again, I say that if it is technically feasible to just fake it, that’s what they would do. Trying to get a plane, Boeing or not, souped up or not, to actually hit the building for real — that is just way way more prone to error than making a fake video! Once you make a fake video, all you need is the ability to get it shown on the major networks. You do need your moles placed in the appropriate places in the broadcast media to show your fake video at the key moment. But assuming you have that, the operation is much easier technically. My sense is at least 80% likelihood that NPH is the correct theory. I still would refrain from expressing any greater certainty than that though!

  354. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    And I suspect that I’ll never be able to break the iron sphere around Geo’s protective armor no matter how hard I try.

    Hi, Rurik. As I’ve indicated before, I have no difficulty “going there.” If this weren’t true then why do I accept the Liberty was a deliberate attack that the American gov’t participated in covering up, or that the Bush administration lied about WMD, or the LBJ administration lied about the GofT, or that I reject the official narrative about who was responsible for the anthrax attacks that were carried out soon after 9/11, or the Obama administration lied about the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime? If I had this so-called “iron sphere” of protective armor, none of these things should have been able to penetrate it.

    No, it has nothing to do with an impenetrable suit of armor. It has more to do with the requirement that a preponderance of evidence is needed to tip the scales in favour of one direction, rather than the other. I tend to accept that all these other incidents occurred because there was a preponderance of evidence to support it. That’s not the case for the LIHOP or MIHOP propositions. As I’ve indicated before, while I support an independent investigation into the role the Israelis played before, during, and after the events on 9/11, I am still skeptical of these propositions put forward by the TM.

    What would it take to convince me? To begin with, a lengthy rebuttal of Ryan Mackey’s 306-page paper, “Debunking 9/11 Debunking.” Specifically, I would like to see someone provide a detailed response to each of the following criticisms he makes regarding several of DRG’s claims:

    As we come to the end of this long section, let us summarize and correct the many and repeated errors made by Dr. Griffin:
     While rare, progressive collapse is a danger long understood by the structural engineering community, and not a new concept invented by NIST.

     NIST did not need to consider the late stages of building collapse in any detail, since earlier calculations demonstrated a total collapse was virtually inevitable once the impact floors collapsed.

     A total collapse is expected even without any damage or significant heating to areas well below the impact floors, because even if undamaged, the lower floors are not strong enough to dissipate the momentum of the falling section.

     Dr. Griffin’s claims that the collapses took 9 and 11 seconds are based on a misreading of the NIST FAQ, and video confirms that the collapses took several seconds longer, which is not “faster than free-fall” or even “virtually free-fall.”

     Dr. Griffin’s estimate of 45 seconds for total collapse is based on his unsupported estimate of one half-second per floor, and his belief that the collapse would not accelerate, somehow counteracting the acceleration due to gravity.

     The only support for his 45-second collapse time comes from Dr. Wood, whose analysis violates conservation of momentum and is totally indefensible.

     While it is true that some mass was lost in the form of dust, analysis of the dust reveals few heavy construction materials, and there is no evidence that this was a significant effect with respect to collapse time or speed.

     There is no credible evidence for explosions as the towers collapsed.

    Each of the points he makes above are falsifiable and therefore easily refuted by those who have a sounder knowledge of physics, especially structural en