Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21-07-2013, 11:59 PM   #41
cousin_frothy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/S...Beam5.html#map cars?
cousin_frothy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 12:33 AM   #42
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cousin_frothy View Post
What you say about the drills during terror events is the exact point, the powers that be know that this has been noted by investigators, so to keep doing that is 'illogical'

How were cars charred half a mile away from the scene?

How can nano-enhanced thermite turn buildings to dust?

http://drjudywood.com/articles/scien...ficMethod.html
read the bit about starwars beams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2dI-yRkFXY

Interesting read that, but your points first:
The correlation between false flag terrorism and state run drills is well known to those of us who have been skeptical of 9/11 and who have researched it for years, and became a really major issue after the London bombings because of Peter Power. But it was not so well known in 2001. Personally I had never even heard of such a thing on 9/11 and didn`t until I read Ruppert`s and Tarpley`s books in 2003-2005. I think this explains why we have seen no major false flag attacks since then, and instead small scale school shootings and ridiculous "terrorists" like Richard Reid and Abdulmutallab, where the events are small scale. What I think you`re missing is that even though they know we know they just can`t execute attacks like 9/11 without drills because they have to conceal the planning and preparation from the bureaucracy they are using to organize them. If they just openly start carrying out false flag terrorist attacks without drills they will be resisted and exposed by naive Dudley Doorights in the system, and they do exist. Unless the entire machinery of the state can be criminalized down to the last person -janitors included- they need drills.

When it comes to the charred cars, which were actually rusted if you look into that, have a look at the collapses again. The clouds stretched for miles, covering the entire Manhattan peninsula and spilling out into the East River and the Hudson. Now, if the clouds were full of reacting nano thermite then they will have been able to produce rust on metallic objects in the path of the cloud. If the material was done reacting or hadn`t ignited then it would not have caused rust, which could account for uneven distribution of rust, perhaps even lines down the sides of them, like I have seen in Wood`s photos. I just don`t see how rust can be claimed to be evidence against the nano thermite hypothesis when rust is the main byproduct of it. In fact, nano thermite is rust that has been developed in a lab at the molecul√łar level.


Red grey chips. Rust on one side, molten iron on the other.

And even if the nano thermite hypothesis is wrong, what in the space beam/DEW theory can explain rust and the other forensic traces of nano thermite in the dust?

About turning the buildings to dust I don`t know, and it was one of the things that made me not believe what the US government was saying from day one. But as the paper you linked to says, there`s no evidence of a building having been demolished by nano thermite in the past, so we really have no way of knowing what that might look like. And since the towers were so large, the quantities of whatever explosives you use will necessarily have to be great, and by the looks of things, if they used explosives they really packed it in there. Just the vaporization of the top of the south tower that started leaning out over the street makes it look like every square centimeter of the building had been sprayed with the stuff. In addition, the fact that the dust clouds were reported by witnesses to be extremely hot also supports the hypothesis that they contained reacting nano thermite attached to the grains of dust. I realize that this leads to a few follow up questions like why people were not being burned etc, but we just don`t know, and have no real way of testing or examining those questions properly.

As for why I support Jones, Harrit and others in the nano thermite hypothesis it is because they are the only scientists who have performed research and experimentation on the actual dust from the collapses. And when they did the molecular evidence is precisely what you would expect from nano thermite: condenced drops of molten iron, rust chips and even unreacted nano thermite which Jones successfully ignited in his lab. This also proves by the way that the tempratures reached were high enough to not just melt steel but vaporize it before it cooled and settled as droplets in the debris. Unless the space beams produce unreacted nano thermite and nano scale iron drops as a byproduct I would tend to maintain that this proves that nano thermite was used to demolish the buildings, since these are precisely things nano thermite produce. If it was just from the cleanup the dust would not have any nano thermite in it because it would have blown far away before the cleanup began.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjwPIsTEulg

Look at this lecture by Niels Harrit where he explains why the evidence found in the remains of the collapses proves that nano thermite was used. Neither he or Jones have ever claimed that it was the only thing used, but that it was the only thing they could prove was used through their laboratory research.
It is even possible that space beams were used along with nano thermite and conventional explosives, but we would need to know what effects we can expect if this is the case, and we would need solid forensic evidence for those effects. So far I just don`t see it.
As interesting as this is though, perhaps we can try to focus on the drills more specifically in this thread, since that was why I started it. I understand that it`s connected because the drills, at least to some extent, fit the demolition hypothesis slightly better, but maybe we can continue the DEW/thermite conversation in one of the other threads about that on this site instead. I am trying my best not to get sidetracked, which is quite the challenge when I love discussing things so much

Last edited by skulb; 22-07-2013 at 02:51 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 12:58 AM   #43
cousin_frothy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Interesting read that, but your points first:
The correlation between false flag terrorism and state run drills is well known to those of us who have been skeptical of 9/11 and who have researched it for years, and became a really major issue after the London bombings because of Peter Power. But they were not so well known in 2001. Personally I had never even heard of such a thing on 9/11 and didn`t until I read Ruppert`s and Tarpley`s books in 2003-2005. I think this explains why we have seen no major false flag attacks since then, and instead small scale school shootings and ridiculous "terrorists" like Richard Reid and Abdulmutallab, where the events are small scale. What I think you`re missing is that even though they know we know they just can`t execute attacks like 9/11 without drills because they have to conceal the planning and preparation from the bureaucracy they are using to organize them. If they just openly start carrying out false flag terrorist attacks without drills they will be resisted and exposed by naive Dudley Doorights in the system, and they do exist. Unless the entire machinery of the state can be criminalized down to the last person -janitors included- they need drills.

When it comes to the charred cars, which were actually rusted if you look into that, have a look at the collapses again. The clouds stretched for miles, covering the entire Manhattan peninsula and spilling out into the East River and the Hudson. Now, if the clouds were full of reacting nano thermite then they will have been able to produce rust on metallic objects in the path of the cloud. If the material was done reacting or hadn`t ignited then it would not have caused rust, which could account for uneven distribution of rust, perhaps even lines down the sides of them, like I have seen in Wood`s photos. I just don`t see how rust can be claimed to be evidence against the nano thermite hypothesis when rust is the main byproduct of it. In fact, nano thermite is rust that has been developed in a lab at the molecul√łar level..
And even if the nano thermite hypothesis is wrong, what in the space beam/DEW theory can explain rust and the other forensic traces of nano thermite in the dust?

About turning the buildings to dust I don`t know, and it was one of the things that made me not believe what the US government was saying from day one. But as the paper you linked to says, there`s no evidence of a building having been demolished by nano thermite in the past, so we really have no way of knowing what that might look like. And since the towers were so large, the quantities of whatever explosives you use will necessarily have to be great, and by the looks of things, if they used explosives they really packed it in there. Just the vaporization of the top of the south tower that started leaning out over the street makes it look like every square centimeter of the building had been sprayed with the stuff. In addition, the fact that the dust clouds were reported by witnesses to be extremely hot also supports the hypothesis that they contained reacting nano thermite attached to the grains of dust. I realize that this leads to a few follow up questions like why people were not being burned etc, but we just don`t know, and have no real way of testing or examining those questions properly.

As for why I support Jones, Harrit and others in the nano thermite hypothesis it is because they are the only scientists who have performed research and experimentation on the actual dust from the collapses. And when they did the molecular evidence is precisely what you would expect from nano thermite: condenced drops of molten iron, rust chips and even unreacted nano thermite which Jones successfully ignited in his lab. This also proves by the way that the tempratures reached were high enough to not just melt steel but vaporize it before it cooled and settled as droplets in the debris. Unless the space beams produce unreacted nano thermite and nano scale iron drops as a byproduct I would tend to maintain that this proves that nano thermite was used to demolish the buildings, since these are precise things nao thermite produce. If it was just from the cleanup the dust would not have any nano thermite in it because it would have blown far away before the cleanup began.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjwPIsTEulg

Look at this lecture by Niels Harrit where he explains why the evidence found in the remains of the collapses proves that nano thermite was used. Neither he or Jones have ever claimed that it was the only thing used, but that it was the only thing they could prove was used through their laboratory research.
it is even possible that space beams were used along with nano thermite and conventional explosives, but we would need to know what effects we can expect if this is the case, and we would need solid forensic evidence for those effects. So far I just don`t see it.
The cars are melted and deformed and scorched, not rusted.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/S...Beam5.html#map

I do take your point about the drills, But when could they have drilled the actual attack? just once on the one drill?. . pretty good for a one off non drilled event
cousin_frothy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 01:08 AM   #44
cousin_frothy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Thanks for the youtube link, I'll look tomorrow as it's gone 2am and it lasts over 2 hours.

cousin_frothy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 01:18 AM   #45
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cousin_frothy View Post
The cars are melted and deformed and scorched, not rusted.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/S...Beam5.html#map

I do take your point about the drills, But when could they have drilled the actual attack? just once on the one drill?. . pretty good for a one off non drilled event
I`m gonna look some more at the cars and come back to you then. I`ve looked at the pictures Wood has collected before but it`s hard sometimes to know exactly what you`re looking at with pictures. Off the top of my head though, nano thermite would have been hot too so couldn`t that account for some melting of cars here and there?
With the drills, if you go to the OP and look at the link there for the full complement of 46 drills, which include preparatory drills as well as the ones going on on 9/11, I think you`ll find what you`re looking for. And remember that it didn`t all go as planned. WTC 7 was demolished even though the Shanskville plane failed to hit it to complete the illusion; the maneuver of whatever aircraft shot the missile into the Pentagon was always much too extreme (8Gs) to be pawned off as a passenger plane being flown by a fruitcake like Hanjour; the destruction of the towers was way too forceful for anybody with a cerebellum to ever believe it could have been caused by fire; the MSM reported things prematurely because scripts were handed out too early; and for whatever reason they were forced into the ridiculous claim that no explosives were used that very day, even though all the witnesses knew they were lying. This was to me a huge propaganda mistake right from the start and I still cannot understand how anybody anywhere ever believed this amazing hooey.
If they had said on 9/11 that al Qaida had managed to smuggle explosives into the WTC complex and blew them up after getting the world`s attention with the plane crashes, I might very well never have become a 9/11 truther. Because as outlandish as that sounds in itself, it doesn`t lead to all the obvious disconnects between what you have just seen and what you are being told as the absurd fire hypothesis, or should I say fire myth. does.
Maybe that was the original plan and was changed for some reason. Perhaps they thought people wouldn`t believe them and decided in a hurried moment to go with the fire nonsense instead, not understanding the enormous problems this would create for them down the road. Or just maybe the added humiliation of forcing weak people to accept such a fantastic story was the plan all along: the more outrageous and intellectually degrading the lie the better.

Last edited by skulb; 22-07-2013 at 01:26 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 01:31 AM   #46
cousin_frothy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
I`m gonna look some more at the cars and come back to you then. I`ve looked at the pictures Wood has collected before but it`s hard sometimes to know exactly what you`re looking at with pictures. Off the top of my head though, nano thermite would have been hot too so couldn`t that account for some melting of cars here and there?
With the drills, if you go to the OP and look at the link there for the full complement of 46 drills, which include preparatory drills as well as the ones going on on 9/11, I think you`ll find what you`re looking for. And remember that it didn`t all go as planned. WTC 7 was demolished even though the Shanskville plane failed to hit it to complete the illusion; the maneuver of whatever aircraft shot the missile into the Pentagon was always much too extreme (8Gs) to be pawned off as a passenger plane being flown by a fruitcake like Hanjour; the destruction of the towers was way too forceful for anybody with a cerebellum to ever believe it could have been caused by fire; the MSM reported things prematurely because scripts were handed out too early; and for whatever reason they were forced into the ridiculous claim that no explosives were used that very day, even though all the witnesses knew they were lying. This was to me a huge propaganda mistake right from the start and I still cannot understand how anybody anywhere ever believed this amazing hooey.
If they had said on 9/11 that al Qaida had managed to smuggle explosives into the WTC complex and blew them up after getting the world`s attention with the plane crashes, I might very well never have become a 9/11 truther. Because as outlandish as that sounds in itself, it doesn`t lead to all the obvious disconnects between what you have just seen and what you are being told as the absurd fire hypothesis, or should I say fire myth. does.
Maybe that was the original plan and was changed for some reason. Perhaps they thought people wouldn`t believe them and decided in a hurried moment to go with the fire nonsense instead, not understanding the enormous problems this would create for them down the road. Or just maybe the added humiliation of forcing weak people to accept such a fantastic story was the plan all along: the more outrageous and intellectually degrading the lie the better.
Can't help but wonder, If it was not a air liner that hit the pentagon but a missile or something else, then we're missing a plane?
cousin_frothy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 02:04 AM   #47
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cousin_frothy View Post
Can't help but wonder, If it was not a air liner that hit the pentagon but a missile or something else, then we're missing a plane?

Possibly, but then we don`t really have all that much evidence any of the planes from the official version were even involved. The case for this is almost exclusively the suspicious phone calls, but most of them came from 93. In fact, almost all of them did. I have heard someone speculate that all the four planes in question landed at Logan and that all the passengers were moved onto 93 to get rid of all the witnesses by shooting it down, and that the three other planes were either not there (Pentagon) or replaced by remotely flown military aircraft (New York).
The basis for this is that all four planes allegedly took off with most of the seats empty, which would be highly irregular for trans continental flights in the USA since they are always crammed as full as they can go for maximum profitability. But it`s speculation anyway and there`s no real way to prove it. What`s not speculation is that there is no possible way Hahni Hanjour could have flown a passenger plane the way the US government reported that flight 77 flew before hitting the Pentagon. He was a moron, a douchebag and a complete and utter cretin who would have had trouble hitting the broadside of a barn with a bicycle. In addition the maneuver would have produced in the order of 8 gs, which would have made him and anybody else on board unconscious before even descending to ground level.



This isn`t the best image in the world and only shows the horizontal trajectory and not the vertical, and because the plane was descending dramatically during this circular movement at high speed it is beyond the skills of expert pilots. Secondly, the final turn was also too sharp for the design of a large passenger plane and is basically physically impossible to perform. Tests have been conducted with professional pilots in simulators and they all fail to reproduce the path allegedly taken by 77, hence the presence of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Furthermore, what is the point of the circle to begin with? Why not descend earlier to escape radar detection and hit the building without the turn? And why not hit the more important east wing where the top brass and Donald Rumsfeld had their offices? And then the cherry on top is Hanjour the Clown, who was so bad at flying cesnas that his instructors refused to fly with him anymore just a few weeks before 9/11 and who is reported to have started praying when he lost control of his practise plane on at least one occasion, who the US government insists performed this miracle descent perfectly, after having flown for half an hour into West Virginia before turning his plane around.
Like I said originally; whichever direction you approach 9/11 from it stinks to high heaven...

Last edited by skulb; 22-07-2013 at 02:35 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 04:59 PM   #48
marky78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 21 (7 Posts)
Default

Thread diversion??

Good orininal posts op
marky78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 06:34 PM   #49
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marky78 View Post
Thread diversion??

Good orininal posts op
Nobody wants to talk to me about the drills


Last edited by skulb; 22-07-2013 at 06:35 PM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 08:38 PM   #50
cousin_frothy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Nobody wants to talk to me about the drills

Well I can only say that the drills imo are part of the illusion, but yes they tie in with the whole 9/11 hoax.

I don't want to keep posting here because it's going off your topic
cousin_frothy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 04:44 AM   #51
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Bump in anticipation of debunking comedy.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2013, 01:08 AM   #52
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Bump in anticipation of debunking comedy.
Where oh where have all the debunkers gone?
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2013, 07:27 AM   #53
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Anyone?
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 05:14 PM   #54
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default The Drills Were Part of the Propaganda Barrage

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Anyone?
Okay, I'll bite. The drills were a sideshow.

What did they accomplish?
  • The drills reinforce the notion that the most of the military was kept in the dark, implying that this was not an operation run from the top-down but a "rogue" element because had our brave military not been purposefully distracted, they could have stopped it.
  • The more important accomplishment was to reinforce the "Plane" meme, else without planes to intercept, why would the drills even be important?
  • The so-called "alternative" media gained credibility with the opposition by reporting the drills and Cheney's suspicious behavior, thereby reinforcing the left/right dynamic, otherwise known as "divide and conquer".
  • The drills gave the controlled truth movement something to crow about, wasting over a decade focusing on a non-issue.

These accomplishments were from the top of my dome, but I'm sure there were more.

Last edited by yankee451; 05-01-2014 at 05:15 PM.
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 06:23 PM   #55
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Okay, I'll bite. The drills were a sideshow.

What did they accomplish?
  • The drills reinforce the notion that the most of the military was kept in the dark, implying that this was not an operation run from the top-down but a "rogue" element because had our brave military not been purposefully distracted, they could have stopped it.
  • The more important accomplishment was to reinforce the "Plane" meme, else without planes to intercept, why would the drills even be important?
  • The so-called "alternative" media gained credibility with the opposition by reporting the drills and Cheney's suspicious behavior, thereby reinforcing the left/right dynamic, otherwise known as "divide and conquer".
  • The drills gave the controlled truth movement something to crow about, wasting over a decade focusing on a non-issue.

These accomplishments were from the top of my dome, but I'm sure there were more.
I don`t agree with this and think it turns things on their head. Personally I have heard very little crowing about the drills and what looks more like a coverup of them within the truth movement. Just look at the DI forums: hundreds of threads about explosives, no planes, "directed energy" weapons, Israel doing it, Saudi Arabia doing it, the Illuminati doing it, the repitilians doing it, missiles at the Pentagon, flight paths, phone calls and God knows what. There is as far as I know one single thread here about the drills and it`s this one, started by me. And I know I`m not crowing, trying to divide people or showing off, but am trying to point to the one element of 9/11 where you can demonstrate precisely how the attacks were carried out, and not just find endless ways of proving that the official story is a fraud.
And I don`t see how it can be said to reinforce the left right paradigm either. Both sides lied their asses off about 9/11, with a few exceptions like Cynthia McKinney. They all wanted the power the US government grabbed for itself using 9/11 as a pretext. All it does is directly implicate the leaders of all the institutions running drills that day precisely like the attacks we were told came as a total surprise. If we want the guilty we should find and interrogate whoever arranged all these drills.
As for the military I don`t think it was in the dark but that it`s compartmentalized, just like the CIA; FBI and all the rest of these institutions. In one room you have white hats who are naive enough to believe they`re hunting "terrorists" and in the next room you have the people organizing and handling the same "terrorists". The same goes for the army: one officer is criminal and in the know, and hides what he`s doing from the naive Dudley Dooright next to him. This is why the drills are so important: if anybody asks any nosy questions you can say" don`t worry about that, it`s just a drill we`re running, and you don`t have clearance". If the patsies get caught or parts of the mole network gets exposed you can say the same thing: "national security"; "just a drill" and "need to know". If the entire operation gets exposed you can just call off the live components, let the drills resume uneventfully and look for another opportunity later.
Since I know you are interested in precisely what was used to blow up the buildings in NYC you should be interested in these drills too. Digging into the AWACS drills should tell us whether they were used to remote control planes or missiles that day, and we wouldn`t have to spend any more time discussing that. Ignoring the drills is why the truth movement never got these answers.

The truth is no institution is all bad or all good, and in the USA there is a long tradition for compartmentalizing the vilest crimes imaginable inside otherwise legitimate institutions because it provides credible deniability and cover. This is how the US Army administered plague blankets to displaced indians in the 19th century. It wasn`t the entire US Army but a small group organized by private interests for this purpose inside the army. The obvious answer is to decentralize everything to prevent the huge national bureaucracies that are being used for stuff like 9/11. If the USA had 50 small armies instead of one big one it would be very difficult to conduit events like 9/11 through any part of this structure, and the same would be true if you only had state wide police, state wide "intelligence" etc. I guess this is an entirely different subject though....

Last edited by skulb; 05-01-2014 at 06:30 PM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 11:40 PM   #56
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
I don`t agree with this and think it turns things on their head. Personally I have heard very little crowing about the drills and what looks more like a coverup of them within the truth movement. Just look at the DI forums: hundreds of threads about explosives, no planes, "directed energy" weapons, Israel doing it, Saudi Arabia doing it, the Illuminati doing it, the repitilians doing it, missiles at the Pentagon, flight paths, phone calls and God knows what. There is as far as I know one single thread here about the drills and it`s this one, started by me. And I know I`m not crowing, trying to divide people or showing off, but am trying to point to the one element of 9/11 where you can demonstrate precisely how the attacks were carried out, and not just find endless ways of proving that the official story is a fraud.
And I don`t see how it can be said to reinforce the left right paradigm either. Both sides lied their asses off about 9/11, with a few exceptions like Cynthia McKinney. They all wanted the power the US government grabbed for itself using 9/11 as a pretext. All it does is directly implicate the leaders of all the institutions running drills that day precisely like the attacks we were told came as a total surprise. If we want the guilty we should find and interrogate whoever arranged all these drills.
As for the military I don`t think it was in the dark but that it`s compartmentalized, just like the CIA; FBI and all the rest of these institutions. In one room you have white hats who are naive enough to believe they`re hunting "terrorists" and in the next room you have the people organizing and handling the same "terrorists". The same goes for the army: one officer is criminal and in the know, and hides what he`s doing from the naive Dudley Dooright next to him. This is why the drills are so important: if anybody asks any nosy questions you can say" don`t worry about that, it`s just a drill we`re running, and you don`t have clearance". If the patsies get caught or parts of the mole network gets exposed you can say the same thing: "national security"; "just a drill" and "need to know". If the entire operation gets exposed you can just call off the live components, let the drills resume uneventfully and look for another opportunity later.
Since I know you are interested in precisely what was used to blow up the buildings in NYC you should be interested in these drills too. Digging into the AWACS drills should tell us whether they were used to remote control planes or missiles that day, and we wouldn`t have to spend any more time discussing that. Ignoring the drills is why the truth movement never got these answers.

The truth is no institution is all bad or all good, and in the USA there is a long tradition for compartmentalizing the vilest crimes imaginable inside otherwise legitimate institutions because it provides credible deniability and cover. This is how the US Army administered plague blankets to displaced indians in the 19th century. It wasn`t the entire US Army but a small group organized by private interests for this purpose inside the army. The obvious answer is to decentralize everything to prevent the huge national bureaucracies that are being used for stuff like 9/11. If the USA had 50 small armies instead of one big one it would be very difficult to conduit events like 9/11 through any part of this structure, and the same would be true if you only had state wide police, state wide "intelligence" etc. I guess this is an entirely different subject though....


Please. Where did you hear about the war games if not from the truth movement?

Alex Jones, 2004:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...gamescover.htm

Michael Ruippert, 2005:
http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubic.../dp/0865715408

9/11 Blogger, 2006:
http://911blogger.com/node/4483

Loose Change, 2006:
http://www.loosechange.com/

I also recall discussions of the war games when I was an associate member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, back in 2006:
http://twilightpines.com/index.php?o...d=38&Itemid=35

2004 to 2014, yet here we are still discussing the alleged war games.

The propaganda was and remains endless, but the damage doesn't lie, and the damage evidence indicates no planes of any kind were used at any of the 9/11 sites. So without any evidence of planes, why are we still talking about them?
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2014, 12:17 AM   #57
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Please. Where did you hear about the war games if not from the truth movement?

Alex Jones, 2004:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...gamescover.htm

Michael Ruippert, 2005:
http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubic.../dp/0865715408

9/11 Blogger, 2006:
http://911blogger.com/node/4483

Loose Change, 2006:
http://www.loosechange.com/

I also recall discussions of the war games when I was an associate member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, back in 2006:
http://twilightpines.com/index.php?o...d=38&Itemid=35

2004 to 2014, yet here we are still discussing the alleged war games.

The propaganda was and remains endless, but the damage doesn't lie, and the damage evidence indicates no planes of any kind were used at any of the 9/11 sites. So without any evidence of planes, why are we still talking about them?
I am aware that people in the truth movement have been talking about drills. My point is that this is not what people on this site and others obsess over. Instead they talk about architecture, planes/no planes, exotic weapons, the melting point of steel. You personally obsess over no planes, which is fine. But to me this doesn`t change 9/11 one bit and doesn`t lead us closer to understanding how the attacks were organized, while the drills do.
Personally I couldn`t care less if there were planes or not, and it`s just one more endless hyper-technical debate to engage in, which is what the truth movement has amounted to sadly.
If a single demand to investigate the drills on 9/11 had been pushed from the start there would possibly have been a Congressional inquiry into them which might have led us far closer to nailing some of the people responsible for 9/11 than discussing planes/missiles/bombs for year after year.

And what I was trying to point out was that most 9/11 truth scholars, with the exception of Tarpley and Ruppert, treat the drills almost as an afterthought. Take the new Italian 9/11 documentary which is absolutely excellent on almost everything, but which hardly mentions the drills at all because so much times is spent on proving the physical impossibility of the official version. But we all know that`s a lie already, so whodunnit and how? Which is where the drills come in, because every part of the attack, including your missiles, were covered by one or more drills. It`s just that simple. The reason it`s been 13 years of this baloney now is that the truth movement has failed to grab hold of the one thing which could unravel the whole thing, because the drills were public, as were the names of the people who organized them, and therefore impossible to deny in the face of serious investigation. Any serious probe into the drills would bring the whole coverup down, while more discussions of technicalities brings the event further and further away without justice or the truth being broadcast to the public.

It`s just the appropriate string to pull for those who know that every word told about 9/11 by the US government and the media is a big fat lie. And missiles is not because like the "directed energy weapons" and "Tesla tornadoes" it changes nothing.

Last edited by skulb; 06-01-2014 at 12:21 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2014, 03:10 AM   #58
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
I am aware that people in the truth movement have been talking about drills. My point is that this is not what people on this site and others obsess over. Instead they talk about architecture, planes/no planes, exotic weapons, the melting point of steel. You personally obsess over no planes, which is fine. But to me this doesn`t change 9/11 one bit and doesn`t lead us closer to understanding how the attacks were organized, while the drills do.
Personally I couldn`t care less if there were planes or not, and it`s just one more endless hyper-technical debate to engage in, which is what the truth movement has amounted to sadly.
If a single demand to investigate the drills on 9/11 had been pushed from the start there would possibly have been a Congressional inquiry into them which might have led us far closer to nailing some of the people responsible for 9/11 than discussing planes/missiles/bombs for year after year.

And what I was trying to point out was that most 9/11 truth scholars, with the exception of Tarpley and Ruppert, treat the drills almost as an afterthought. Take the new Italian 9/11 documentary which is absolutely excellent on almost everything, but which hardly mentions the drills at all because so much times is spent on proving the physical impossibility of the official version. But we all know that`s a lie already, so whodunnit and how? Which is where the drills come in, because every part of the attack, including your missiles, were covered by one or more drills. It`s just that simple. The reason it`s been 13 years of this baloney now is that the truth movement has failed to grab hold of the one thing which could unravel the whole thing, because the drills were public, as were the names of the people who organized them, and therefore impossible to deny in the face of serious investigation. Any serious probe into the drills would bring the whole coverup down, while more discussions of technicalities brings the event further and further away without justice or the truth being broadcast to the public.

It`s just the appropriate string to pull for those who know that every word told about 9/11 by the US government and the media is a big fat lie. And missiles is not because like the "directed energy weapons" and "Tesla tornadoes" it changes nothing.
You couldn't care less whether there were planes or not?

Obviously you think there were planes, else you wouldn't care a wit about the alleged war games.

There can be only one right answer, and it certainly doesn't include Tesla, DEW or planes.
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 05:05 PM   #59
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
You couldn't care less whether there were planes or not?

Obviously you think there were planes, else you wouldn't care a wit about the alleged war games.

There can be only one right answer, and it certainly doesn't include Tesla, DEW or planes.

That`s right, I don`t care because it`s just another diversion inserted into the truth movement to make sure nothing ever comes of it. Like I said it changes absolutely nothing whether there were planes or not, and your failure to realize this is why you`re effectively a saboteur.
What I`m talking about is a real way to get justice by probing the mechanisms of the execution of 9/11, where there are presumably real people responsible for arranging the drills and therefore the 9/11 attack itself.
This could change things by bringing some criminals to justice, or it could have if people hadn`t been running around hogging the conversation with no planes/planes, "directed energy weapons", Tesla tornadoes and dancing Israelis.
Anticipating that this simple logic will once again be too much for a zealot of the no plane school of cognitive infiltration, let me ask you this: what is the value of obsessing over the issue of no planes? What changes if it can be 100% proven? Will different people be guilty of 9/11 or the same ones?

The answers are obvious and failing to acknowledge this only exposes you.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 01:45 AM   #60
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 637
Likes: 28 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Let me see, so for 12 years the so-called "truth movement" has been leading us in circles but I'm the saboteur for pointing it out. You have a dizzying intellect.

You keep using those words, but you keep neglecting to specify what court will hear the case, who will investigate it, who will prosecute and who will punish the guilty. Care to elaborate?

I use my real name and face, and I'm in the book. I was already exposed...WTF are YOU again?
The circles are the endless speculative debates like the one you`re having here, totally diverting the thread. This is sabotage. If you insist on talking about no planes regardless of what the topic is you are effectively a saboteur.
Because of these endless technical debates no attention has been directed against the obvious signs of US government responsibility for the attacks. With all the diversions you`re so fond of the guilty can be basically anybody, ranging from Britain and Israel to the Russians and Chinese, and you get nowhere.
The drills prove conclusively that it was the US government that ran the attacks. No planes debates do not. Since the drills are the only path which clearly proves US government responsibility, a focused push to get to the people who arranged the drills could have yielded lasting political results. No plane debates result in nothing.
You are exposed as a saboteur and consciously or not a disinfo operative, working to keep distractions at the center of 9/11 Truth, and you`re not alone. This is because you, and most people in the truth movement, are behaving like one. If you weren`t behaving like one you wouldn`t be exposed. It`s very simple. The only thing you can do is stop behaving like a saboteur by derailing other people`s conversations with your incessant no plane stuff which doesn`t matter in the slightest.

If you have any intelligent remarks on the drills this thread is about then feel free. If you have more no planes speculation please go to one of your 500 threads about that instead of derailing.

Last edited by skulb; 11-01-2014 at 01:47 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:19 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.