The 9/11 Forum

YIKES...

Of course this is completely true. And much of history is distorted narratives because it was not documented and preserved. Back then we didn't have the tools we have today to document and analyze events.

What is stunning is that having those tools so few seem to be interested in accuracy and are more interested in weaving a political narrative based on a very sloppy rendition of the event. These narratives serve a political and social objective.

The truth movement is not unaware of this and identify things like *false flags* which just by the name tell you that there is a sort of distortion of events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... tionism%29

from that article:

Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism.[1] This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—is also sometimes (but not commonly) called negationism.[2][3]

"In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism appeals to the intellect—via techniques illegitimate to historical discourse—to advance a given interpretive historical view, typically involving war crimes or crimes against humanity. The techniques include presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious, but implausible, reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing his or her own conclusions to books and sources reporting the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).[4] Practical examples of negationism (illegitimate historical revisionism) include Holocaust denial and some Soviet historiography.[5][6] Contemporarily, hate groups practice negationism on the Internet. In literature, the effects of historical revisionism are usually described in science fiction novels such as Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell. Moreover, some countries have criminalised the negationist revision of certain historical events."

Did we experience real time historical revisionism on 9/11... that is we were *fed* a deception and left without any actual understanding of the event and this has been reinforced over time by various groups with political agendas?

The past is an illusion you suffer in the present.

SanderO:

Did we experience real time historical revisionism on 9/11... that is we were *fed* a deception and left without any actual understanding of the event and this has been reinforced over time by various groups with political agendas?

Yes, but it depends on whether it was intentional or a long series of mistakes and coincidences.


This case is truly unique in that the events were captured in video and photographs.

It is historic revisionism combined with a bastardization of anything that can be called a "scientific method".

The combination of historic revisionism with a distortion of any application of a scientific method of investigation (captured on film and images) of a pivotal historic event within our lifetimes is unique.

And all this is done in the "age of information", on a world scale, with very few people noticing the alteration of technical information. The few people who do point this out receive quite a bit of hatred in return for their efforts.


It is an information blackout achieved by swamping the public with verifiably incorrect information from multiple sources (false choice). And it is all dressed up in "science".

Major_Tom wrote:

Well, let's try it and find out.

This is my website: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911

If you click on the link, you will see that, temporarily(?), you can no longer access the site. Likewise, my "book" is no longer available.
..................
Good.

Poof. You have no more history.

Not good. I visit the site frequently and want it back... kindly allow at least some of us access to this incredible collection of information.

Poof it back on!

Poofed back on, temporarily.

Access to mappings of the collapses are that fragile.
...........

Without this, without independent research and independent researchers, you are fed a bunch of contradictory bullsh*t.

Without independent research, you have no way to know that you have been fed a bunch of contradictory bullsh*t. You have nothing to compare it with outside of an artificially narrowed false choice.

You have no means by which to study the collapses accurately or the question of demolition (unless you are happy with your gut feelings, as many seem to be).

GOOD ENOUGH FOR WHOM?




Next, I want to give a number of specific examples of how the consequences of my thesis serve to mess with the minds of those who appear to be quite normal, decent human beings caught in the middle of the artificially narrowed false choice offered to the public at large.


Jon Gold:








Many people knew they were being lied to from the contradictions they could verify. What they didn't know is that the technical experts and those who portray themselves as such were basically setting them up for a whole new series of untrue claims.

It isn't as if these people were being f*cked with enough. Unwittingly, these same people were being set up to be f*cked with again, this time on a technical level.




This person does not strike me as insincere ::::::




On the question of demolition

He supported what he called the controlled demolition hypothesis at the time the first 2 videos were made. (Based on what information? AE911T, STJ911...)

He now no longer supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. (Again, based on what information?)

Do I blame him for either stance? No. From my own research I know that he was simply responding to the void of available technical information on the subject in both cases. He found himself in an environment in which there was no clear description of the structural and particulate flows witnessed during each collapse. We are still in such an environment.

He says he is just a Joe Shmoe wrt to the technical aspects of the collapses in the first video which, again, seems like an honest admission. For this reason he is one of many, many examples of Joe Average as described in part 6 of the book.

In 2010:

Let us meet more of the people whose minds and emotions were being f*cked with through a false, ambiguous and confusing technical history of the collapses and people claiming to be technical experts:




and a few weeks later:



filmed by Joe Anybody.

I was at the Treason in America conference and of course met and spoke personally with many of the presenters and attendees. This conference came a few months after my expulsion from AE911T and at the time I was pretty much damaged goods as far as the truth movement was concerned the veritable persona non grata.

These people, both the presenters and the attendees are angry and lost... they feel justifiably betrayed by their government, lied to by their government and ignored by their government. 9/11 was such a huge event and extremely complex, political and game changing on so many levels.

The MIC jumped right in and got the nation on a war footing... the national security state got all the money they wanted, and all the programs they could think of. This was supposed to make Americans feel better. Some who wanted to vengeance got the opportunity... and then they got the mental illness and came home without limbs. Today more soldiers are dying from suicide than those dying in combat. They couldn't keep the blood flowing so they had to begin stop loss and make soldiers re up. Ten years on and even the military are not very happy. The MIC is still laughing all the way to the bank.

The victims got nothing. They got delays and no answers. They were pressured to settle and not take their case to court. Not a single victim has had a wrongful death case litigated... no discovery.. just stipulations, secrecy and lots of seal documents and a death settlement.

Why can't we know what happened? What is being hidden? I've come to doubt MIHOP and CD and maybe it was an assisted LIHOP or a LIHOOI. But the incompetence might extend back much further and deeper than just dereliction of duties on the fate day and failure of the alphabets to share information... MIHOP is a rather damning assertion. There's no way that the insiders will allow that to be revealed.

But none of the acronyms mean anything until we know precisely what happened. That is the horse before the cart.

George Carlin on dealing with BS:






part 2:

After that short intermission by George Carlin, it is time to begin the 4th and final part of the smart idiots thread.



In the third part I constructed a "book" which now appears on my website. I am now happy with the overall structure, and in this 4th and final part I will try to refine and finalize the book. I want to take this opportunity to explain why I wrote each part as I did and how this book can be used as a tool on many levels.

........................


I chose the thesis carefully. The common approach to a book or paper on this subject is to write around the following thesis:

The buildings were demoed because...

or

The buildings were not demoed because...


Both approaches assume a level of certainty to which the claimant does not have access in reality. Premature efforts in these directions are sure to end in failure, since neither can be claimed without a comprehensive understanding of what we are looking at. What I have found from experience is that nobody I have observed had a real understanding of what they were looking at, including me.

Over time I've watched people on all levels make incorrect claims, sometimes quite blatantly about global attributes of each collapse. There can be no doubt that those with PhDs and higher levels of technical education have made some bone-headed blunders, often in a state of fixed certainty. We have watched this for some time.


in retrospect, the single biggest obstacle for many participants within the discussions, including mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers, computer programmers and journalists, was their own head-strong vanity which led to premature states of false certainty. The evidence for this is everywhere we look within years of recorded posting histories, published papers and articles written about the collapses. It became quite obvious that the less humility one has when approaching these issues, the more certain that individual was to post blatantly untrue information and defend it to the point of absurdity.

This pattern still continues today. It will probably never end with respect to these events.

But while observing the contradiction and confusion, I, poor Major_Tom, began to understand why this is the case. As a result I do not blame people for being so confused, or rather I blame some for their extreme stubbornness but not for their confusion.

I came to understand that each individual was left to guess on their own as they had no common pool of technical information from which to draw understanding. This is because we were never given an intelligible description of what we were looking at.


This, to me, is the fundamental starting point from which one can begin to understand the objects being observed as well as the reactions of those observing them. This is why the specific thesis was chosen and the book was written around it.

Now, there is a way out of this predicament, and the information needed to escape this trap, I believe, is given in part 1 of the book. First and foremost it is necessary to recognize the confusion surrounding the collapses which exists all around us. For many people this is very hard to do. Many will not recognize this within themselves, but perhaps they can recognize it in others as it is very visible if one makes the effort to see it.




A similar situation arose quite recently among some of the best, most perceptive physicists of our time within the field of quantum mechanics. In part 1, I link to a classic example which shows the differences between David Bohm and Neils Bohr in their efforts to understand the mechanism underlying quantum mechanics.




David Bohm (beginning at 9:04, part 3 through 1:45, part 4):

"I am saying this gives an intelligible explanation."


"Niels Bohr's discussion is extremely subtle and it is very hard to pin him down. ... but I feel it is important to make it (the underlying mechanism) intelligible."


"A theory is to make you understand what is going on, to make it (the process under study) intelligible." (0:59, part 4)


"I think the other theory (The Bohr, or Copenhagen interpretation), the reason it is not generally known is because it is not intelligible. It is so abstract and difficult that they (physicists) really can't understand what it says."


"I think this (the Bohm) interpretation will make the whole thing more accessible to more people."



"We have a different principle of explanation."

The parallel between the situation Bohm describes and our own predicament is striking. We, too, are looking at complex processes which have an underlying mechanism which is not directly visible. Like the physicists mentioned by Bohm, we, too, are dealing with underlying mechanisms of which many people at all educational levels are clearly confused.

Within my own experiences watching people discuss these issues, I have witnessed quite a lot of confusion. I have witnessed confused people, many of whom cannot admit to their own confusion, creating further confusion for others while remaining locked in false, head-strong certainty.

I have found that there are many people who see the technical issues as "black and white", while others are able to admit that things are more subtle, that this is not "physics 101", that building behavior is quite complex and structural-particulate flow and ejection patterns are not so easy to decipher.

Of those who see the events as black and white, they will, in all cases, assign the color white to their own views. This invariably leads them to assign the color black to those who do not automatically agree with them. This is not a proper reflection of the situation, but instead is a general reflection their own larger world view.

These people and this type of attitude will always exist in relation to the events of 9-11-01. They see the events as "obvious", as "physics 101". It is natural and expected that those who see the events as obvious and themselves as white will view deeper inquiry into the technical nature of the events with suspicion. A book like this one will appear meaningless to those who see the events as black and white. That is fine by me, as this book is not written for people that see the world, or the events of 9-11-01, in terms of black and white.


As for those who can admit that the events as witnessed are quite complex and that they do not know everything about what they are looking at, it is much easier for them to refrain from judgement of others who are confused and have outstanding questions and concerns. They are my intended audience and the book is written for people of this type of more open, more flexible mindset.

This being said, The stated thesis of the book will now be reviewed along side the David Bohm quotes given a few posts ago.


THESIS STATED

There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses. This is verifiably true beyond doubt. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature.

Direct measurements and observations extracted from the visual record of the collapses grossly contradict history as it is generally presented.

David Bohm (beginning at 9:04, part 3 through 1:45, part 4):

"I am saying this gives an intelligible explanation."


"Niels Bohr's discussion is extremely subtle and it is very hard to pin him down. ... but I feel it is important to make it (the underlying mechanism) intelligible."


"A theory is to make you understand what is going on, to make it (the process under study) intelligible." (0:59, part 4)


"I think the other theory (The Bohr, or Copenhagen interpretation), the reason it is not generally known is because it is not intelligible. It is so abstract and difficult that they (physicists) really can't understand what it says."


"I think this (the Bohm) interpretation will make the whole thing more accessible to more people."



"We have a different principle of explanation."

In addition to these, I also reproduce a portion of Albert Einstein's introduction to his book "Relativity; A simple explanation that anybody can understand", which I quote in my own introduction.

The author has spared himself no pains in the endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form...

From these quotes and my stated thesis, it is my hope that the reader can understand, in no uncertain terms, why, underneath the plastic, artificial crust of false certainty, so many people remain confused and will always remain confused about the collapses witnessed on 9-11-01.

You might find this event interesting to listen to as described in the following review:

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/20 ... -hearings/

I fear I must include Tony in this list of shame at this point.

Utterly and willfully blind and ignorant of input.

TMJ was published and he's seemingly incapable of, pardon the pun, non-rigid behaviour.


I really must ask Tony, here, to begin to actually respond to criticism of the "jolt" hypothesis.

Step 1: Recalculate with 1 degree tilt, resulting in a series of separate impacts over a period of 200msec. Minimum number of "impacts"...58 (perimeter) + 8 (core rows) + 3 (OOS regions). 69 minimum.

Each of the 69 separate (virtual) impacts should occur from South to North, and an estimation of how each impact would traverse the structure to present at the NW corner.

I am sure we would all agree that the 3 collapsed buildings are physical systems. The purpose of the first half of part 1 in the book is simply to point out that observations and measurements are the anchors around which the physical sciences are based, and I use physics as an example to show this.


Now, anyone can spot a key Achille's heel in any "debate" on these subjects over the last decade simply by observing the different attitudes people have toward collections of observations and measurements.

If you do that, you can see the subtle ways we have reverted to the 16th century, in a time around Galilei Galileo, without realizing it.

People have reverted to the study of physical systems by using their feelings or guts and decrees of authority.

Gentlemen, behold how on all forums, through all discussions, how observations and measurements of the physical systems under study are treated. Always and everywhere you will see the same pattern if you look.

.........................

A second key Achille's heel is this; when observations and measurements are discussed, they are treated as separate fragments.

This human tendency is firmly rooted in what David Bohm in part 1 of the book calls the "western world view". In the linked interview with Bohm in part 1, he uses a watch as an example.

This is how separate threads seem to work within many forums. They are broken up into small, highly idealized component parts. People substitute the highly divided, fragmented ideas for the real things under study without making the effort to see how it fits into a larger whole.

In my book I assemble more comprehensive mappings based on lists of observations and measurements. It is both humorous and a little bit spooky to see how many people react to these mappings. It is as if they are written in chinese.