Psychologists Explain 911 Denial (Video 1)
Cognitive dissonance and our inability to examine empirical evidence for fear of ostracism, anxiety, a challenge to our world view. How we appeal to denial to protect us from anxiety, and the effect of trauma on a national level after watching thousands of Americans killed on live television.
“The PEOPLE are a flock of sheep, and we are their wolves. And you know what happens when the wolves get hold of the flock? There is another reason also why they will close their eyes: for we shall keep promising them to give back all the liberties we have taken away as soon as we have quelled the enemies of peace and tamed all parties. . .
“It is not worth while to say anything about how long a time they will be kept waiting for this return of their liberties.”
“People don’t understand. There may be more. Anyone of these fucking buildings can blow up. This ain’t done yet!”
Firefighters discuss three explosions in the lobby. After the plane hit. (Video 4)
The Media Silence on 9/11 Finally, and Convincingly Explained
So given the obvious evidence of a false flag, why the cover-up and silence from even America’s enemies? The reason is actually convincing and sobering. This silence may very well change. Consider the Feb. 7, 2015 story in Pravda: Putin Threatens to Release Satellite Evidence of 9/11:
Moscow (Pravda): American experts believe that despite the fact that relations between the US and Russia reached the worst point since the Cold War, Putin delivered until Obama only minor troubles. Analysts believe that this is the “calm before the storm.” Putin is going to hit once, but he’s going to hit hard. Russia is preparing the release of evidence of the involvement of the US government and intelligence services in the September 11 attacks.
The list of evidence includes satellite images.
Published material can prove the US government complicity in the 9/11 attacks and the successful manipulation of public opinion. [see below] The attack was planned by the US government, but exercised using her proxy, so that an attack on America and the people of the United States looked like an act of aggression by international terrorist organizations.
The motive for deception and murder its own citizens served US oil interests and the Middle East state corporations.
The evidence will be so convincing that it utterly debunks the official 9/11 cover story supported by the US government.
Russia proves that America is no stranger to using false flag terrorism against its citizens in order to achieve a pretext for military intervention in a foreign country. In the case of “the September 11 attacks,” the evidence will be conclusive satellite imagery. [Operation Gladio]
If successful, the consequences of Putin’s tactics would expose the US government’s secret terrorist policies. The government’s credibility will be undermined and should bring about mass protests in the cities leading to an uprising, according to American analysts..
And as the United States will look on the world political arena? The validity of America’s position as a leader in the fight against international terrorism will be totally undermined giving immediately advantage to rogue states and Islamic terrorists.
The actual development of the situation could be much worse, experts warn.
Why conceal the Bush Administration’s treason and false flag? “The validity of America’s position as a leader in the fight against international terrorism will be totally undermined giving immediate advantage to rogue states and Islamic terrorists.” Truth is the only option now: we have lost all credibility as brokers of peace.
- This is why police departments have been militarized.
- This is why every phone call, text, email was and is collected by the NSA. It’s not to protect against terrorists, but to protect billionaire elites engaged not just in treason but wholesale international and domestic terrorism.
- This is why Muslims were tortured to extract false confessions implicating them in 9/11.
- This is why the anti-Muslim narrative is still strong as ever.
- This is why Guantanamo Bay was never closed.
- The is why the media is selling you a candidacy of Jeb Bush verus Hillary Clinton, because both families are complicit.
- This is why Saudi Arabia’s role is concealed. They are the “middle east state corporations.”
- This is why the corporate media conspired to manipulate the public and discredit whistle blowers and “truthers”, from the BBC to FOX News, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.
What has been clear in the last year is that Washington, via Victoria Nuland, was attempting a regime change in Russia by toppling Putin via sanctions or provoking war with NATO. In an appropriate thank you, the release of this data now threatens the most significant regime change since the Revolutionary War.
Audio Update of “Secondary Explosions”
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/playlists/135261859″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”150″ iframe=”true” /]
A “New Phenomenon”: On Thursday, August 21 2008, a new WTC 7 theory was proposed by administration appointees at The National Institute of Standards and Technology to explain its mysterious collapse. They declared the building, which was hit by neither plane yet still collapsed in a free-fall hours later, was felled by a “new phenomenon” we shall hereafter respectfully refer to as the Lone Nut Fire Theory.
NIST: It Was a Fire, Even Though the Finding Can’t Be Duplicated in Real World Testing
Dr. Shyam Sunders, pictured right, of the National Institute of Standards and Technology makes a special effort to discount any notion there was evidence of anyone hearing explosions, countless witnesses and video recordings be damned. Regardless, some otherwise reasonable men would attribute the explosions in the audio below to gas mains, but the problem with this theory is two-fold: it assumes the gas mains weren’t shut down, and it cannot account for the fact that these explosions were conveniently, perfectly simultaneous with the collapse of the buildings, with the odds of that happening so ridiculously minute one wonders how anyone calling himself a scientist would sign on to, let alone write such a tacit admission of incompetence or worse.
Secondary Explosions Supporting Demolition
Secondary Devices in WTC
AUDIO: “Basically, he [Albert Turry, New York City Fire Department Chief of Safety] received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could but he said there was then another explosion that took place, and then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place he said there was another explosion in one of the towers here so obviously his theory is that he thinks that there were devices planted in the building.”
NIST computer simulation used in lieu of actual experiments. Why? because the results could not be duplicated in real life. It is impossible. Burned out buildings with steel girders and concrete exteriors leave a shell after all burnable materials are consumed.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards. The stakes, therefore, are high. Sunder’s credentials from MIT should, in all seriousness, be revoked for the sake of the school’s reputation, unless they want it on record that one of their own can officially rewrite the laws of physics and set an unreliable, laughable standard for all proceeding students to follow.
The Scientific Method
What wasn’t done in this so-called investigation: actual science.
Why Does the Media Think You’re Crazy?
|Hamburg: destroyed mainly with incendiaries. In fact, in this city we saw the first true firestorm. Note there is no pancake collapse, anywhere from the incredibly intense fire that obliterated the city. If NIST’s theory was possible, there would be pancake collapses everywhere from the fires. No wall would be standing.||Whether Chris Mathews or Bill Maher, they and others in the media will assume you’re crazy for asking a very good and unassuming question: why would a building hit by neither plane collapse in a free-fall seven hours later, when it was clearly impossible for a fire to cause it? They know better, however. They’re propagandists assets, in a very literal sense.|
1994 Honolulu controlled demolition of Hawaiian Bank
Computer Simulation of Sunder Proves Hypothesis he Munches Scat? (Video 4 in Slideshow below)
Terrible simulation, no? Well, that’s my point. Under standards used in the WTC 7 report, this computer simulation can be used in lieu of real testing, and is therefore equal to Sunder even though I put dubious external parameters (his speech) in the simulation. In this simulation, Sunder admits he is sexually aroused by eating scat.
What Does the NIST Computer Simulation Have in Common with the Sunder Video? Everything.
- Both use images to create a computer simulation. NIST admitted that their research relied solely on videotapes and images of the WTC Building 7 collapse. These were used to create a computer simulation to “recreate” the “probable” cause of the event. The Impious Digest used Sunder’s image and computer simulation to “recreate” Sunder’s speech and probable diet. Like NIST, dubious parameters and variables were used in calculating the probability.
- Both still need validation with actual tests.. Though the results of both computer simulations are alleged to be “high probability”, they must still face experimentation to validate the computer’s predictions.
It was a theory so new that it had never been seen in the history of architecture or science, so new it could only be reproduced in a ridiculous computer simulation: a sentient fire consisting primarily of diesel fuel burning at a temperature hot enough to melt an engine. Isn’t that neat? and CNN not only buys the idea of an intelligent, self-aware conflagration but ridicules credible experts who question the idiotic assertion.
This “new phenomenon” is called a Lone Nut Fire because it didn’t behave like a normal, well-adjusted fire would. No, this fire was maladjusted and especially malicious. A normal fire would stop burning when all combustible materials are consumed. However, the Lone Nut Fire was a “new phenomenon” as National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) claims, and would have none of that foolishness. It would defy the laws of physics and thermodynamics and burn when all fuel from the diesel generators and any other combustible material should have been exhausted, and burn hot enough to melt steel.
Its magic doesn’t end there, no, it was also a demolitions specialist and would also target and melt critical, specific structural support beams in the architecture to create a uniform free-fall collapse. As far as fires go, this one was nuts, as batshit crazy as the brown-nosing commission of douchebags who invented it, but it was talented.
Computer Models Made Predictions Impossible to Duplicate with Test Buildings
Scientific method demands that a hypothesis be tested and its results be repeatable before it is accepted as fact. This, too, was a prerequisite ignored by NIST. Was a building of WTC 7’s exact specifications ever built to test the hypothesis that diesel fuel from emergency generators could burn hot enough to melt steel? Although the report summary states that diesel fuel was not responsible for the collapse, it cites fire as the main cause of the collapse. Talk about inconsistent. What then, fueled the Lone Nut Fire? paper? Computer models alone don’t count, and that’s exactly what they relied on here. Why? because when you propose an impossible theory and it cannot be duplicated with a test building and criteria matching the hypothesis, computer simulations are all you have. Even when they’re used, it’s only to predict an outcome within the given parameters, and usually the predictions are used to design a physical experiment.
Computer models are not a replacement for actual testing and only a dumb ass would claim it was.
Any script kiddie can create a dubious computer model where a slight modification of a Clapper can make dogs fly backwards and glow in the dark; but unless the computer model’s prediction of Clapper-induced canine flight holds up with actual flight testing and peer review, it’s worthless.
This was a wonderful opportunity for critics and real scientists to attack and expose the glaring inconsistencies, flaws, and outright lies in the official story. Thermite, used in demolitions and which can burn through steel, was found in abundance at the site, e.g.. Also, the BBC was reporting the building as already down 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. You can even see the building, still standing, in the background’s live feed as the claim is made. What this means, at the very least, is foreknowledge of what NIST claimed was an unpredictable “new phenomenon” (Rudy Guiliani also let it slip that the building would collapse.) At worst, the foreknowledge implies high level complicity from Mayor Guiliani’s office, not just in a controlled demolition, but a false flag operation.
Pitted against Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST is Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects. As noted in RawStory: [Gage’s] group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute’s claim in a press conference..
“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”
“There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,” Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.
A Challenge for Skeptics
Find a way to validate the NIST “new phenomenon” theory using the Scientific Method or shut the fuck up, because the one thing we do know is that the theory of demolition can be tested and retested by other scientists, even without appealing to computer simulations. That said, which theory do you really think has a chance of duplicating the collapse of Building 7? Here’s a primer for Sunder since clearly, the scientific method is a concept more alien to him than self-respect…
The Scientific Method
- Define the question (what caused the collapse?)
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Form hypothesis
- Perform experiment and collect data
- Analyze data
- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
- Publish results
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
The Sunder Method Used by NIST
- Define the question (“How do we convince experts that fire alone caused the abnormal free-fall consistent only with demolitions?”)
- Gather information and resources (only those facts which support or partially support lone fire theory)
- Form hypothesis (“Stop laughing. Fire caused it. I’m serious.”)
- Perform experiment and collect data. No experiment on test building conducted, only computer simulation.
- Analyze data (WTC 7 videos and documents)
- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis Conclusion was drawn at the beginning.
- Publish results
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists). No retest possible since experiment was never conducted.
A New Hypothesis
- Define the question (Is Dr. Sunder a fraud and scat muncher?)
- Gathered information and resources (WTC 7 report and diet-related data)
- Form hypothesis (Dr. Sunder is, indeed, a fraud and scat muncher)
- Perform experiment and collect data (monitor his reaction to a plate of feces and spoon; and if no objective, scientific testing is possible, resort to computer simulations of him eating scat and call it experimentation using the Sunder Methodology)
- Analyze data
- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis (Impious Digest computer simulation confirms hypothesis)
- Publish results (yes, he is a scat munching fraud)
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists).
9/11 False Flag Allegations Have Compelling Supporting Evidence…
Before you read any further, let’s have a look at a very interesting false flag operation from 1962, Operation Northwoods:
“The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down of passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro‘s communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. The surprise discovery of the documents relating to Operation Northwoods was a result of the comprehensive search for records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990s. Information about Operation Northwoods was later publicized by James Bamford.”;
So does this mean the government was behind 9/11? Since there was a previous terrorist attack on the WTC back in the 90s, that’s not my argument at all. What is obvious, though, is that we can’t put foreknowledge and enabling of an existing terrorist plot past the Bush Administration given its unnerving parallel with Operation Northwoods, and the idea that there was a false flag operation is not a “wild-eyed” conspiracy theory but a belief based on accepted historical precedent, such as the Spanish-American War and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Right now, however, my only argument is that WTC Building 7 fell by demolition, not fire. Regardless, you should take a look at what Gen. Wesley Clark had to say about the matter. He described Bush’s five year plan for seven wars. See the last video below.
Foreknowledge of Building 7’s Collapse
September 11, 2001: BBC reporter Jane Standley discusses collapse of WTC Building 7 some 20 minutes before it actually falls . It is even visible in the background live shot as she speaks. The source of this information is critical. Whomever told her it was already down was clearly aware of demolition plans or implicated in them. So who was it? Specifically, it’s not clear. But the original source was none other than Rudy Giuliani. Building 7, a.k.a. the Salomon Brothers building, has yet to fall, and again, it is still clearly visible and standing in the live shot behind Jane Standley.
You will notice the anchor describes the collapse in past tense , and even details the specific reason for the collapse long before it is officially “confirmed”, and vehemently disputed. The point of contention, thereafter, was a criminal demolition versus the official story. What’s the official story? In short, Building 7 was deeply saddened by the attack on the Twin Towers, then poured gasoline over itself to self-immolate, simultaneously eschewing its supporting beams, and collapsing on itself. Okay, that’s not the official story, but it’s just as plausible as the contention that it was all due to a sentient, intelligent fire targeting critical support beams.
In the video clip, Maher appeals to a classic straw man to refute arguments that were never made. For example, from the beginning the main contention regarding Building 7 was not that the government was behind 9/11, it was simply that it was a controlled demolition. Of course, Truthers do believe it was and that it was orchestrated by the Bush administration, but what Bush and the Truthers have in common is the assertion that explosives were used on 9/11. In the video, we see that Maher equates anyone who believes it was a demolition contends it was a government conspiracy, and that’s pathetically dishonest and/or an ignorant pussy gambit. In the first place, you don’t have to believe it was a government conspiracy to believe it was a controlled demolition. You could believe it was Al Qaeda behind the demolitions, as well. Eventually, Bush stated as much on national television. As seen in the Bush video below, he states it was a controlled demolition, but that it was executed by terrorist operatives, and as Bush claims placed there to make sure as many people as possible would be trapped and killed under the building collapse. By 2008, this would be retracted, and once again the building collapse of Building 7 was said to have been caused by a fire, which brings us to the bogus NIST findings discussed herein.
NYC firefighters discuss the controlled demolition of WTC 7
Bill is a Professional. Do Not Question Him
|Why would Bill Maher assume his experience and credibility eclipses that of firefighters that were actually at the scene? I never saw this fucker in a fire truck and no one ever has. Oh wait. Yes I have.|
The video of the NYC fire fighters above was taken on 9/11. Nowhere in the video do you hear them discussing a government conspiracy, they are pointing out a simple fact gleaned from professional experience: they are firefighters, they deal with building collapses all of the time and would know more than anyone if it was due to a fire or not. This was not a collapse that could be attributed to fire, and it was obvious to everyone there. Moreover, a fire alone couldn’t explain the explosions recorded above— immediately preceding the collapse– and noted by major news networks.
So why would Maher literally call these heroes lunatics? It wasn’t even an implied insult, it was aimed directly at ANYONE who mentioned controlled demolitions. Why would this pedant, this smegma-sucking biped pig assume his experience and credibility eclipses that of firefighters that were actually at the scene? I never saw this fucker in a fire truck and no one ever has. I ask you: who would know better about fires and the behavior and effects of fire in concrete and steel structures if not firefighters? So, controlled demolition was was the argument posited by fire firefighters who would know better than anyone. Actually, it wasn’t even an argument. It was an eyewitness observation by the most objective and knowledgeable witness possible aside from a demolitions expert. I think I’ll side with them, and just take Bush’s own words that explosives were used on 9/11.
Truthers may contend that Bush was behind 9/11 and their own arguments are anything but laughable. They are well within the realm of possibility, as is the argument that Al Qaeda planted the thermite in the critical support beams and was the true party responsible. In fact, the answer to the presence of thermite is most astonishing of all. But that’s not the question here. The question is what could compel the audacity and maliciousness of Maher’s smear of anyone with informed dissent?
Simple Question, Actually
Bill Maher was already put in his place by researchers pointing out that two planes hit two towers, but none hit WTC Building 7. What brought it down? It wasn’t fire, as Bill asserts, because diesel fuel blamed for fire doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. If it did, the fuel would melt engines. Same thing with jet fuel. A similar building engulfed in an inferno, such as the 1980 MGM fire in Las Vegas, never came close to creating such a collapse because that time the fire behaved itself, and observed the natural laws of the universe. This fire didn’t believe in fairy tales and superpowers, trying neither to fool itself or others. Building 7 had no such moral distinction. If it did, to explain its innocence in regards to the collapse, the Building 7 fire would have appealed to Occam’s Razor, or as Isaac Newton stated the rule: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” It would reason that if thermite was found in abundance in the ruins, then yes, it was probably a controlled demolition. If the building fell in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition but never with fire, it was probably a controlled demolition and not fire. If numerous explosions were recorded by countless audio and visual sources in the key structural support areas where they would actually create the most damage, then yes, it was probably a controlled demolition, and not a fire. Fire can cause explosions, but you need something explosive in the building to be there or fire will behave itself. This is Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is probably the real one. In the case of it being a fire that caused the miraculously uncharacteristic collapse, you’re being told that one impossibility can follow another, and yet another, and yet another, and create the the only logical and true conclusion.
And to Bill I say, “My good man, I dare say I must opine contrarily to your considered position. Truly, I will nostril fuck you in that big fucking nose until your brain is scrambled mush, you traitorous excrement.” Besides, how did Rudy know it would fall? Well, Bill didn’t like the mention of Building 7, and threatened to kick the ass of the woman who asked.
As intense as the fire was, it simply wasn’t hot enough to melt steel, and it burned much longer than WTC Building 7…
Think this “Conspiracy Theory” is Funny? The Solomon Asch Conformity Experiment Or How People Believe Obvious Lies
We the Sheeple.
“Mr. Giuliani, six years ago you told Peter Jennings that ‘we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse,'” Hicks said, quoting a remark from the former New York City mayor made during an interview with ABC News. “Where did you get your foreknowledge that the World Trade Center was going to collapse?” Also see:
- Rudy’s Ties to a Terror Sheikh: Giuliani’s business contracts tie him to the man who let 9/11’s mastermind escape the FBI
“You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”
Ex-president of Italy Francesco Cossiga, regarding “false flag” operations of a government against it’s own people to push an unspoken agenda, e.g. dictatorship or the scapegoating of political opposition. Cossiga, who participated in such operations in Operation Gladio under NATO auspices, believes 9/11 is a false flag attack. Operation Gladio was overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”
Bush Plan: Seven Wars in Five Years
Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) discusses Bush Administration’s plan to invade seven nations in the space of five years, which first came to his attention in September of 2001. The countries included Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and of course, Iran. The first two of these seven invasions were enough to bring the war plan to a screeching halt and are colossal failures: Afghanistan and Iraq are quagmires with a price tag of over 1.6 trillion dollars and some 30,000 dead and wounded American soldiers. These two wars alone have reduced the United States to borrowing money from China to fund the war.
Gwenyth Todd – Whistleblower on Planned Iran War & WW3
An interesting note is how many times the Iranian nuclear threat has been cited, and how many times leaders on both sides of the aisle have been dead wrong and manipulated by a controlled media:
From Yediot Ahronoth…
- June 26, 1984 … Iran will be capable of producing a nuclear weapon in another seven years.
- Nov. 15, 1991 … Nuclear expert: Iran will have a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade or seven to eight years if China, Pakistan and Argentina continue aiding it.
- June 15, 1992 … Within 10 years Syria will have a nuclear weapon.
- Sept. 20, 1992 … Iran will have an operational nuclear weapon in the next five to eight years.
- Jan. 21, 1993 … Rabin: Iran has the manpower and will get a nuclear weapon in the coming decade.
- Jan. 24, 1993 … Iran has in its possession a nuclear weapon ready for immediate deployment.
- Jan. 9, 1995 … Iran may achieve nuclear capability at any moment.
- Dec. 27, 1995 … Iran wants a nuclear weapon by 2001.
- June 27, 1997 … US: Iran will have a nuclear weapon around 2000
- July 10, 2001 … Iran will threaten Israel with a nuclear weapon within four years.
- Aug. 8, 2003 … IDF: Preparing for an Iranian atomic bomb in 2005
- Aug. 20, 2004 … Iran announces: we will achieve a nuclear weapon within four years.
- July 8, 2005 … Israeli intelligence sources: within two years they will have a bomb on the shelf
- Dec. 2005 … Entire Mideast will arm itself with nukes.
- March 26, 2006 … Iranian atomic bomb in three years.
- June 22, 2006 … Olmert: Within months Iran will be able to assemble a nuclear bomb.
- June 22, 2011 … Iran will have a nuclear weapon in a year or two.