Title: Propaganda Can’t Melt Steel Beams Source:
Kevin Ryan URL Source:http://digwithin.net/ Published:Dec 20, 2015 Author:Kevin Ryan Post Date:2015-12-20 21:04:19 by Operation 40 Keywords:911, twoofer, sycophant Views:19920 Comments:74
Kevin Ryan at Dig Within, 12/20/2015:
Eleven years ago, I initiated a discussion about the fact that jet fuel fires could not have melted steel at the World Trade Center. The government agency investigating the WTC destruction responded by holding some of its deliberations in secret. Although its not a secret that jet fuel cant melt steel, due to propaganda from sources like The Washington Post and The Huffington Post, Americans often get confused about what facts like that mean to any national discussion. In a nutshell, what it means is that the molten metal found at the WTC, for which there is a great deal of evidence, cannot be explained by the official 9/11 myth.
Today no one thinks that jet fuel fires can melt steel beamsnot even The Posts new science champion, who doesnt bother to actually use jet fuel or steel beams to teach us about retarded metallurgical things. Instead, he uses a thin metal rod and a blacksmith forge to imply that, if the WTC buildings were made of thin metal rods and there were lots of blacksmith forges there, the thin metal rods would have lost strength and this would be the result. If you buy that as an explanation for what happened at the WTC, you might agree that everyone should just stop questioning 9/11.
This absurd demonstration highlights at least two major problems with Americas ongoing struggle to understand 9/11. The first is that there was a great deal of molten metal at the WTC. Those who know that fact sometimes share internet memes that say Jet Fuel Cant Melt Steel Beams when they want to convey that Thermite Melted Steel at the WTC. The second major problem is that certain mainstream media sources continue to put a lot of energy into dis-informing the public about 9/11.
Sources like The Posts, The New York Times and some alternative media continue to work hard to support the official myth of 9/11. That effort is not easy because they must do so while providing as little actual information about 9/11 as possible. The dumbing down of the average citizen is a full time job for such propagandists. Luckily for them, American students receive almost no historical context that encourages them to think critically or consider ideas that conflict with blind allegiance to their government. When it comes to the WTC, it also helps that almost 80% of Americans are scientifically illiterate.
As media companies attempt to confuse the public about 9/11, they must avoid relating details that might actually get citizens interested in the subject. For example, its imperative that they never mention any of these fourteen facts about 9/11. It is also important to never reference certain people, like the ordnance distribution expert (and Iran-Contra suspect) who managed security at the WTC or the tortured top al Qaeda leader who turned out to have nothing to do with al Qaeda. In fact, to support the official myth of 9/11 these days, media must ignore almost every aspect of the crimes while promoting only the most mindless nonsense they can find. Unfortunately, that bewildering strategy becomes more obvious every day.snip more http://digwithin.net/
Kevin Ryan is the former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST.
Through interviews, presentations, and his work as co-editor at the online Journal of 911 Studies, Mr. Ryan works to bring out the truth behind the events of 9/11/01 for the benefit of all people. http://ultruth.com/Kevin_Ryan.htm
For the Unthinking Fuckwit from Purgatory Iron Works and His Idiotic Jet Fuel Demonstration Posted on December 17, 2015 by willyloman
If it (9/11) was a conspiracy, I do not care. Trenton Tye,
genius welder
OK. So we have another phony, Redneck Dixon White fuckwit over at Youtube, a guy by the name of Trenton Tye, who has put together a simpletons version of the Truth regarding what did or did not happen on 9/11.
Tye has taken time from his busy day of working on Youtube videos, a whole 2 minutes mind you, to show the public just how stupid truthers are when it comes to the steel in the Twin Towers.
I, on the other hand, have been researching and writing about those events for the past 8 years and have published over 100 articles of my own work on the subject.
Of course, his substance-free and DEEPLY FLAWED demonstration has been latched upon by several main stream media outlets as the end-all be-all debunking of the Truth advocates out here who say the key evidence in the demolition of the Twin Towers rests in the melted steel.
That is patently false and Tye knows it.
This article, which I will try to make into a video if my computer allows it, and which I will direct toward Tye himself, will pick his ignorant argument apart, piece by piece starting with the first thing that came out of his mouth:
1. If it (9/11) was a conspiracy, I do not care.
Many people do care, Tye, thats why they spend years researching what happened that day. Because, unlike you, some of us (US) do give a shit about finding out who was responsible for the event that killed so many people in New York, Pennsylvania and DC that day and subsequently launched war after war across the Middle East killing scores more (US troops and civilians alike) and leaving 10 times that number scarred for life (US troops and civilians alike). And thats too say nothing of the constitutional rights we all had to give up for the Patriot Act or the trillions of dollars of debt your kids will have to pay for the wars, you fucking imbecile.
Incontrovertible - New 9/11 Documentary by Tony Rooke
Nov 27, 2015 -A film for Coppers & Fire Fighters by Coppers & Fire Fighters.
"Simply put, this is not just the best film I've seen on 911, it's the best film I have seen all year." - Sergeant John Meaders, 32 year ex Californian police officer
One of the best 911 movies ever made! - Kevin Barrett, Truth Jihad Radio
"All family members of a 9/11 victim should watch this film." - Matt Campbell, victim family member
Tired of anklebiting riff-raff that try to de-rail discussions of the most important event in the last 200 years? Visit https://www.reddit.com/r/911truth for an independent look. Trolls are taken out to the junkyard. No insults permitted.
And another site for free thinkers: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/ <--- 342,067 subscribers, ~1,000 people average on line at all times. That's more than 10x the amount of people that visit a typical popular article at this website, online right now and conspiring to find truth.
Since it is clearly evident that the collapse of the towers started at the point of plane impact in both towers, you have to believe one of two things if you believe they were brought down by a demolition:
1) That teams planted explosives at the exact places the planes would impact without anyone noticing, and the pilots were knowledgeable of and could hit these exact points. Also, you believe for some reason it took many minutes after the planes hit before the explosives detonated.
or
2) That teams of explosives experts (that no one noticed) were in place at the points of impact and survived the impact. They then planted and detonated explosives after the impact on a suicide mission.
So which one of these scenarios do you believe? And why the need for the planes anyway if the buildings could just brought down with explosives?
I'm still waiting for you to tell me which scenario you actually believe.
Attention Jackass: Still waiting for you to answer this: Why do you think Bush didn't want an investigation into the biggest crime against America in history?
Now since I answered your question, please reciprocate. TIA
Why can't you answer that? If you fail to provide an answer, we're done. Further "replies" from you to me will be ignored.
In John Farmers book: The Ground Truth: The Story Behind Americas Defense on 9/11", the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.
Farmer states...at some level of the government, at some point in time there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described . The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.
The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... We to this day dont know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?
9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."
With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here? Who is hurt by these lies? The families of the victims of 9/11 have fought, for years, to get to the truth. For years, our government has hidden behind lies and secrecy to deny them closure.
#48. To: Deckard, no gnu taxes, Operation 40 (#47)
Your lives must really suck! Its been 15 years and not one person has come forward. You grab at straws. Once you get passed the ct hype its all explained.
Just like jfk assassination. It has just enough bs to make you think hmmmm what if????
Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:
BUSH: So, what's the plan again?
CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.
RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.
CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.
RUMSFELD: We won't?
CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.
RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?
CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.
BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!
CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.
RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.
CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.
BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?
CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.
BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?
CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.
BUSH: Oh, OK.
RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.
BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?
CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!
RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!
BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?
RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!
CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the summer of 2000, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think tank riddled with soon to be Bush administration officials and advisors, issued a document calling for the radical restructuring of U.S. government and military policies. It advocated the massive expansion of defense spending, the re-invasion of Iraq, the military and economic securing of Afghanistan and Central Asia, increased centralized power and funds for the CIA, FBI, and NSA, among a slew of other policies that would, in the near future, be enacted upon their ascension to power.
In the same document, they cite a potential problem with their plan. Referring to the goals of transforming the U.S. and global power structure, the paper states that because of the American Public's slant toward ideas of democracy and freedom, "this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." (ibid.)