||Misc. Forums||Richard Dawkins|
Reflections of a veteran of many bulletin boards.
Perhaps well over 100,000 posts.
It is clear, that on the internet we must assert very clear positions relating to lawful government, the Constitution etc, then when we see others who are unwilling, point it out and give a position of agreement for others who are reasoning to protect the Constitution can be shared.
Such indicates there is a lack of attention or understanding of the details that are most significant to gaining more truth. A lack of attention to the usefulness and accountability. No accountability means the psyops and disinformation is successful.
Only you can make the difference by using evidence and reason. Create an opinion voice it, and be ready to change your mind. I've done this, I've refined much of what I propose for demo in that fashion, sometimes. I've refined my description of the structure in this way as well. We all do. If there is no flexibility for you or others and confronting WHY, is difficult, perhaps the reasons are unconscious, for you, or another.
Some might say to me, "You are not flexible to information to any other core". I am a witness to the construction of the WTC 1 core. I probably got a better look at the over all than many people on the project. In such a case, no one should be flexible, and they will have many other good reasons which must be respected IF they can substantiate that they are all based in facts.
As a person having what is perhaps better in some ways than first hand experience relating to the construction of the Towers, via my viewing and remembering the 1990 documentary titled, "The Construction Of The Twin Towers", I can say that the issue of the concrete core of the towers, and the way the 9-11 truthmovement is no longer the most contentious and puzzling issue I've ever seen.
I'm to the point where I view acceptance or rejection of the concrete core upon presentation, as a type of litmus test of every 9-11 activists actual position respecting the task of finding the truth, whether they say they believe in demolition or not.
Let me state that this site about the demolition of the Twin Towers is essentially the only web site that actually has a comprehensive explanation for near free fall and total pulverization that is feasible and realistic. I state this because no one arguing for 9-11 actually refers to a site that presents a feasible theory. At least, they only present valid questions, then general assertions at other times There are many sites that decry the inadequacy of the official story and suggest explosives were used but none actually has an explanation of how the explosives were set. The fact is that they could not have been set within the situation that existed to give the appearance that was seen. With steel core columns, never. Steel looks completely different when it is cut with explosives and 47 steel columns would have to be cut 1300 + times to disappear completely from the images which do not show steel columns in the demolition ever, anywhere
Considering the uniformity of the near free fall descent to the ground, with both towers, has never been seen before, even in controlled demolition with no large pieces lying around, this is something that is very unusual. Something unique beyond our experience
Allow me to explain the meaning of this position:
If a person says they believe in demolition they are also saying they do not believe the official story/explanation for what happened on that Tuesday morning? If they say they do not believe the official story they don't trust the government, right? Meaning any and all parts of the official lie are suspect. Why then is the core description of FEMA believable? Recall, FEMA was within a mile or so, in force, a couple of days BEFORE 9-11!
Basically the official core cannot have existed because steel flexes too much when in the proportions of the towers as they did. And if they existed that way they couldn't have been removed as it was and if it was, we would see at least some of the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns. We do not see any ever.
In simply working to spread, on bulletin boards, the knowledge about the towers core I have, I've been banned from;
Let's Roll 9-11.org (now returned since they were hacked)
I consider above Secret.com to be an intelligence operation having very high tech offensive capacity. Two macs were shut down just trying to load their pages after being banned. One lost 2, 256mb ram chips, the other I'm not sure. Perhaps the same.
Let's Roll banned me for not coming up with more proof of the concrete core when my opposition had none and I cried "disinfo.". The same with Loose_Change_Forum, but they said that it was for cross posting. Meaning that their rules are more important than the truth, because the video Loose Change does not explain free fall and total pulverization, my site does. My explanation depends on the concrete core being the containment vessal for high explosives built in at construction and the mods their never produced any proof of the steel core meaning that my assertions of a concrete core were accepted. However, the rules in the debate forum were not fairly enforced against my debate opponents and pure BS was allowed when the forum rules state such is not allowed.
I joined the jackblood.com forum not because it had much traffic but because I had actually called Jack Blood on his radio show and he promptly hung up as soon as I mentioned the concrete core. Social fears are so strong that when information is widely accepted, even though it is shown to be useless for intended purposes, other information rejected, will not be used. Not because it is illogical, but because people in social groupings, even on the web, are afraid to be seen entertaining the information.
My first post stated I was being banned for posting reason an evidence or logically using a failure to utilize reason and evidence as supporting "secret methods of mass murder". "Dr. No" an administrator there, assured me that I would not be banned for such activity.
I was banned within 2 weeks. A member there with the username, "Jack Blood" had posted once or twice, but never offered any evidence for the steel core columns or directly opposed my information.
Mike Malloy forum.
The thread I started there.
Below is a warning to me from a moderator after I returned some mild abuse thrown at me. Members attacked me constantly but the forum agenda only punished me for defenses.
This is what I posted. (see it quoted below)
"If you had the guts or brains tho, you'd simply recognize the facts and do something familiar." (Like "protect and defend the Constitution. I had been invoking the soldiers oath.
After the attacks I'd sustained, "Don Smith" writes that my response to a military veteran I'd been trying to show that a failure to recognize violations of law by government is allowing compromises to the Constitution when due process is involved, was somehow too harsh and that understanding was possible. I'd seen enough to know that it was not in that case, at least without shaming the vet into using reason.
I was banned within a day or so.
Questions for those that believe in steel core columns AND demolition on 9-11.
How many explosions would be required to cut
47 1300 foot columns and cut them into 40 foot pieces?
How much high explosive is required to cut
thick tempered steel without linear shape charges?
Does the explosive have to be in direct
contact with the steel?
Do linear shape charges have to be in direct
contact to perform?
What was acesss/clearance like around the
supposed steel core columns in the core?
What do unconstrained high explosive
detonations sound like and does that compare to what was
heard on 9-11? What does it look like when cutting steel
with high explosives?
If the steel core columns existed and they were taken out with explosives, why is that thing still standing which would have to be AROUND the steel core columns while no steel core columns are seen protruding from the core?
If the steel core columns existed and they were taken out with explosives, show us the columns from ground zero that have been cut in that way.
No Accountability To Reason With Regard To Supporting Greater Intent
Comprehensively, if a person says they cannot believe that the towers were demolished then I assert, "FEMA lied about the design and construction of the buildings." I show evidence which absolutely discounts the structure that FEMA said existed. At this point they must agree or disagree that the towers had a concrete core. If they disagree, they should show evidence if they are going to be reasonable. When they do not and continue to say "No, the tower had steel core columns as FEMA said, why are they doing that if they actually want the truth?
Inconsistency or Inflexibility in supporting the stated Greater Intent.
In the case of a person arguing FOR demolition but who argues against the concrete core if they are continuing to argue and they have an interest and say they believe in demolition, they must be still arguing against demolition if they cannot accept that there was a concrete core because the concrete core enables instant free fall.
More Example of "Cognitive infiltrations" Diinformation, Misinformation, basic Cointelpro of post 9-11
War On You, WOY forum
Back To The Scenario
Feedback to; firstname.lastname@example.org