Looks like Obomber is going to use today's shooting to create a constitutional crisis

[chi 2012]

Blue is an erroneous belief, orange is wise (or only logical, since it is part of the legal foundation of the government) and green (first sentence) is a philospohical distortion of reality, a blame-game to reject responsibility.

 

Probably a better example for Blue would be that they would intimidate and punish Red the hardest. A better example for Green could be that England has green gun laws and has fewer gun deaths. 2nd tier could then then find a way to use the blue and green examples without giving up orange.

[gendao]

Vortex – Ever since Airplanes carried bombs – we’ve all been one push of a button away from being destroyed by our government….But so far it hasn’t happened.

Says who? If they did, would they admit it?

But maybe once PSY0P SANDY is completed and the 2nd Amendment is gone...maybe they won't even have to hide it?!

Edited March 7, 2013 by vortex

[Owledge]

Does England have fewer gun deaths in total or per capita? And are those statistics including law enforcement and criminals?

It could very well be an exception. Many countries have shockingly loose gun laws and very few gun deaths. This is the prime argument against putting primary blame on gun availability. If criminals know civilians aren't allowed to own guns, they don't think twice about using gun violence.

Also, regarding the USA: It's not the guns that kill, it's social problems, created, naturally, by the antisocial behavior of those who have massive influence over shaping society.

 

The whole thing is just another system, and any system can be corrupted. It's the collective power of enlightened individuals that will, naturally, bring about conditions that far supercede Wilber's idea of a World Federation. Because that one is still employing old world philosophy, like that crime has to be fought, met with punishment.

 

I keep advising people not to get too entangled in systems and concepts. The solution has to originate within. Without that source, it cannot manifest outside. Our physical existence is a fear game, and only love and compassion can raise the average level of enlightenment, because it represents and influx from a higher realm. Trying to better the world without that is like a government's fiscal policy trying to improve things by moving around budgets between useful purposes. Unless more money flows in, it's pointless.

Fighting something that fights .. guess what's the outcome of that.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Owledge

[chi 2012]

Vortex - I think a 2nd tier courtroom would rule that your evidence you posted above is nothing more than "Red" conspiracy nonsense.

[Owledge]

 

This is what bugs me about popular conspiracy research.

How could one 'overlook' the obvious difference of a fire from inventory burning vs. a fucking avgas-filled airliner crashing into the building?!

 

Also, regarding the popular statement about the collapse speed, usually using the term "near free fall", I usually just respond with this little physics course:

(To not get confused: The WTC was not built with reactor concrete.)

Once a part of the WTC was no longer seated on a stable structure, it acelerated, and then nothing could stop that immense mass. It just pulverized everything below it and blew the fine result out to all sides.

Many people don't understand that physics don't scale with size. They're constants. A 1/100 model of the WTC with a steel structure would be much more stable than the actual buildings.

 

WTC7 is a different animal, but one should be able to discriminate.

WTC7 was a classic controlled demolition, with the bottom floor collapsing fully plus the central pillar being at the beginning of the collapse. After the lies that the building structure was weakened by airplane debris, then they said they pulled it because it was too badly damaged. And anybody who has at least some knowledge of controlled demolition will realize how absurd it is to claim that within a few hours they got a demolition team into a burning building, prepping it for perfect controlled demolition. Because that takes days... only days if you forget about all the other prepping to avoid hazard to the surrounding environment. A controlled demolition with no prepping except planting explosives makes little sense right next to other buildings, especially since WTC7 was not in danger of collapsing. But they pulled it to get rid of incriminating information about the planning of the 9/11 attacks, and the owner made a nice sum with insurance fraud regarding WTC7 and the twin towers.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Owledge

[Owledge]

Vortex - I think a 2nd tier courtroom would rule that your evidence you posted above is nothing more than "Red" conspiracy nonsense.

 

What is "red" about it and what about it do you consider nonsense?

[chi 2012]

What is "red" about it and what about it do you consider nonsense?

 

The whole agenda behind the conspiracy stuff is red. Get people pissed off and outraged - so the anarchists can reign supreme and have their way - leading to total chaos. I just don't see the evidence. Also I agree with your other post about going within.....Wilber and Spiral Dynamics can be a little to heady - especially if people disagree with it. So, it's not for everyone.

[Owledge]

The whole agenda behind the conspiracy stuff is red. Get people pissed off and outraged - so the anarchists can reign supreme and have their way - leading to total chaos.

Oh my, that's government agit-prop. Just like "the terrorists hate us for our freedom". It's almost insulting to imply that people who don't buy the official story are chaos-loving egoists drunk with power. Also, reigning supreme and anarchy is a contradiction, for anarchy can only work if you don't have that ambition in its participants.

[chi 2012]

Oh my, that's government agit-prop. Just like "the terrorists hate us for our freedom". It's almost insulting to imply that people who don't buy the official story are chaos-loving egoists drunk with power. Also, reigning supreme and anarchy is a contradiction, for anarchy can only work if you don't have that ambition in its participants.

 

If believing in these theories helps you go within and see "what is" - then more power to you. I just don't see the evidence no matter how much I try - so I find better ways to go within.

[joeblast]

common denominator in all of these is that "the official story, while containing some truth, also plainly contains some fictions."

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

The whole agenda behind the conspiracy stuff is red. Get people pissed off and outraged - so the anarchists can reign supreme and have their way - leading to total chaos. I just don't see the evidence. Also I agree with your other post about going within.....Wilber and Spiral Dynamics can be a little to heady - especially if people disagree with it. So, it's not for everyone.

 

 

i specifically "liked" your post only so that i could, and DID, unlike it......

 

 

 

you are a greater threat to the freedom of the people than "Chaotic anarchs", a telling sign that you have NO idea what anarchy truly is.

 

 

Also, what owl said.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[Owledge]

If believing in these theories helps you go within and see "what is" - then more power to you. I just don't see the evidence no matter how much I try - so I find better ways to go within.

Maybe I can save you some time and help you finding what you were looking for, since I've done years of study in the area. Evidence for what did you try to find and couldn't?

 

By the way, you misunderstand. Believing in those theories doesn't help me to go within and see what is. I choose to see what is, thus I know that there's truth in those theories. Thus I don't have to believe a theory, but I know which information is true, regardless of any artificial limiting construct like a "theory".

 

You said you worked in the military, so your perceptions are (apparently) twisted based on the military's authoritative and sometimes chauvinistic mentality. I want to stress that availability of information is not the problem; access is. Various threads here in the forums contain very eye-opening information, and what you should realize is that there's a lot of information out there that you probably wouldn't believe despite being undisputed - yes - agreed upon by corporate media, mainstream and fringe historians and whatever else group. The mind trick that corrupt governments/media play on people all the time is to keep them distracted from the obvious unsettling truth. It's the kind of information that sheeple will usually react to with statements like "Don't you have anything better to do?" or "I have to worry about feeding my family, no time for that stuff.".

 

Any system meant to represent the people has to be fueled by the people. If a group of people choose a champion for something that they themselves are incapable of, then they will get according results. Instead, they should choose mere representatives, humble servants.

Compare that to the gun control situation: More and more people giving up personal responsibility for upholding costitutional values, instead putting that power in the hand of people who then take that responsibility away from those who didn't do so voluntarily.

If you buy a used car and have no clue about car technology or contract law, don't be surprised if you get ripped off. That's the price of convenience.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Owledge

[chi 2012]

My time in the Military has nothing to do with where my level of thinking is at now. People who know me well – know that I am very anti authority by nature and question everything.…..Most people who work for the Military are stuck in Blue to Orange meme level thinking.

 

I’m not looking for any info on conspiracy theories at this time. I said what I needed to say about Spiral Dynamics and maybe some people will look into it. Somehow the topic got switched from Spiral Dynamics to 911 conspiracy theories. I’m sure there are people here that will enjoy your information. Also I’m not for or against any of these theories – leaving me open to all possibilities.

[Owledge]

Talking about being open to all possibilities, but quite made up your mind about who the 'bad guys' are. I saw that as an incentive to help you find some factual basis to understand why things happen and why people are doing what they do.

 

And why are you surprised 'the topic' got switched from Spiral Dynamics to 9/11 conspiracy theories? This thread was originally about gun control law.

 

All in all, it sounds like you made a conscious decision to not be ready for further steps in compassionate evolution. It's your choice, but staying at that level could become more difficult over time, and then the choice will be a harder one.

Spiral Dynamics caused you some dizziness there.

[chi 2012]

If you uncover some information that is "the truth" and not just "your truth" feel free to send it my way.

[Owledge]

It's so much I can't remember all the sources, and it's kind of everywhere. (Thus I assume your motivation was a bit biased, since it's almost impossible to not stumble over solid facts e.g. while browsing youtube videos.) You'd have to be more specific. It requires a dialogue based on sincere and somewhat passionate inquiry (which I don't see right now) to be fruitful, otherwise it's just a waste of effort. I won't try to change people's beliefs. I can only help them change theirs once they are ready.

[gendao]

(To not get confused: The WTC was not built with reactor concrete.)

I guess I am confused. After that F-4 was rammed into that concrete wall - the jet was completely pulverized but the concrete wall was "barely" damaged. Like, not even cracked.

 

Back in 1945, a B-25 similarly crashed into the Empire State Building, leaving only a small hole and flames put out in 40 minutes..

Granted, this plane was much smaller than Boeing 767's and flying much slower, but the Empire State was also built far less sturdily. After this accident, skyscrapers (like the Twin Towers) were reinforced to better withstand such crashes.

 

Anyhow, my simple point is that plane crashes and fire don't automatically cause buildings to suddenly collapse all the way to the ground. This was evident in your F-4 test as well as a few other historical examples cited here. I'm not saying it's necessarily impossible, just improbable because it has never been seen before.

 

 

But the more scientific, forensic smoking guns would actually be the extremely high temperatures seen and recorded in the wreckage - that indicate high-powered explosives (like therm@te or n@nothermite) - not just plain/plane jet fuel.

highest temperatures NIST estimated for the steel samples was only 250°C (482°F), according to the metallographic paint tests they performed on WTC core column specimens.

it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F)

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength

Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center

Melting metals typically requires intense, sustained heat trapped in a furnace from ~1500°-2750° F. It's not like you can melt a paperclip with a candle! There is a HUGE difference in the amount of heat you need to actually melt metal. Hence, the Copper, Bronze & Iron ages were huge milestones in human history.

 

But even if such high temperatures were reached from a simple fire (and not explosive charges), the steel would likely slowly soften, weaken, bend and melt over some time, not instantly fail.

But alas, I digress...back to color-coding people and guns..!

Edited March 8, 2013 by vortex

[Owledge]

Boeing 767 = roughly 8 times the mass of a B-25. Higher velocity.

Reactor concrete is not the same as building concrete and steel girders. Also, to be correct, the video didn't show how the impact point on the test wall looked afterwards. I'm pretty sure abrasion will have caused a crater. That's how it absorbs the damage - by now allowing pressure waves to travel through and wreak havoc in the structure.

 

All this I consider soft evidence, because it involves a lot of chaotic complexity. A possible explanation for the high temperatures is that in that hell of destruction, there will be a lot of pulverized metal of the ingredients of thermate, and jet fuel and pressure might cause it to ignite.

I have to say though that there's at least one photo of the remains of a steel girder that look exactly the way they would after a common controlled demolition technique. (45 degree angle, clean cut)

Also, since apparently there were explosives planted in WTC7 before the attacks, it is not absurd to suggest that the same was the case in the twin towers to ensure maximum destruction. This gains further credibility by the long history of the U.S. goverment of planning and sometimes executing the same stuff.

 

The real hard evidence is found on the political level, not on the scientific level. People lying, contradicting, deceiving, refusing statement, manipulating data and much more. This is why the 9/11 truth movement emphasizes that they want a proper investigation, not that they have all the truth. And that is not being allowed. It's like first you have a ton of things that don't make sense and then ask those who should know for clarification and you basically get a "Fuck off, moron. We won't say anything more on this.". As far as I know (it's a public claim and relatively easy to verify) the 9/11 commission report didn't mention WTC7 at all. This is just one example of many. The report couldn't contain anything that the U.S. government didn't accept to be published.

As I said, on one side you have the people, wanting answers and the truth, and on the other side you have liars with a long history of severe crimes against humanity, and the latter still are given more credibility than the former? That's kinda odd.

 

It's a bit painful for people who are properly informed about history to see how the same stuff keeps repeating itself over and over and almost every time people are being fooled.

 

Reality is that there's absolutely solid legal evidence that would require many high ranking politicians to be incarcerated for life (or even death sentence, depending on the jurisdiction), but in practice they have immunity, because the system is sufficiently corrupted in their favor. The problem is so big that people have come to accept crimes against humanity as 'normal' and regard those who want nothing more than the government to act within a legal framework as radicals and terrorists.

 

I've done a lot of reading about the Iran conflict, and that one is a very good example for why the U.S. government has zero trustworthiness. The USA is in the UN security council together with other countries who have nuclear weapons. They don't allow UN inspectors in their nuclear facilities. They develop new nuclear weapon technologies. They facilitate trade of nuclear weapons technology to other countries that have not signed the NPT. They support countries militarily that have not signed the NPT and have nukes. They refuse to follow their obligations to help all NPT countries with their civilian nuclear technology. They are violating every fundamental principle of the NPT and are bullying another country based on those very allegations.

 

Man, sometimes I feel like a guy in Nazi Germany trying and failing to convince people that Hitler is not a benefactor. But at least back then there was no internet - information transfer was much more limited. Today there is no good excuse for not seeing what's happening.

[gendao]

I have to say though that there's at least one photo of the remains of a steel girder that look exactly the way they would after a common controlled demolition technique. (45 degree angle, clean cut)

Also, since apparently there were explosives planted in WTC7 before the attacks, it is not absurd to suggest that the same was the case in the twin towers to ensure maximum destruction. This gains further credibility by the long history of the U.S. goverment of planning and sometimes executing the same stuff.

You can see how these huge girders have been sliced at cleanly-cut angles.

This is presumably because when demolitioning a building, it's important to rig the charges so that the beams get cut at angles - rather than just straight across. This ensures a collapse as the beams then get forced to slide past each other:

But you wouldn't see this in an ordinary impact/fire...

And yet:

Even though National Fire Protection Agency guidelines (NFPA 921) require that, in the case of "high–order" damage, tests be made for explosives, NIST made no such tests.

 

When NIST spokesperson Michael Newman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report, the following dialog ensured:

ABEL: "… what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"

NEWMAN: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."

ABEL: "But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?"

NEWMAN: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time … and the taxpayer's money."

 

Newman's response is completely at odds with the NFPA guidelines, as well as with the scientific method.

There is something there! – unexploded n@nothermite and the by–products of a therm!te reaction – iron–rich microspheres!

Anyhow, there is plenty of both scientific and political evidence for why the government's own conspiracy theory is inexplicable.

Edited March 8, 2013 by vortex

[Owledge]

Of those things just posted, I recommend focusing on the political issues, like that absurd illogical reasoning regarding explosives evidence or statements from commission members.

The other stuff, again, contains a lot of stuff based on a misunderstanding of physics. It saddens me that Jesse Ventura says in interviews that he worked in demolition himself and then talks about stuff like the points I mentioned. Shows that working in a field is (of course) no guarantee for omniscience.

The steel girder thing is still soft evidence, because ... who can say for sure that in a scenario like that, with a whole steel structure collapsing and the brutal forces at work, steel girders don't break like that - *SNAP*. They might not have had time to bend. This is trivial: You have a metal rod that is very inflexible. You use a machine and bend it slowly. You take another rod and bend it quickly and it breaks. And there's no reason why it should have a tendency to break in a jagged style like seen in silly comics.

 

Very hard evidence:

- perpetrators' own words

- whistleblowers

- contradictions

- proven lies / malicious actions

 

What I would love to see for entertainment purposes (personal amusement) is a visual simulation of how based on aboveshown physics-based claims the collapse of a tower is supposed to look if you remove the alleged explosives from the equation. Just weaken it to the point of collapse at the impact point. How do people imagine it would look? Like a sugarcone maybe, with all the pulverized concrete stacking onto itself?

I mean, seeeeriously! How much did that building top weigh again? Something like four hundred thousand tons?

Compare with the F4 phantom video again and tell me there were explosives planted in the plane's hull because the dust is flying outwards to all sides.

f4 phantom jet: little mass + huge velocity

wtc building top: little velocity + huge mass

 

... And yeah - the official version of what supposedly happened is an absurd conspiracy theory.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Owledge

[gendao]

The steel girder thing is still soft evidence, because ... who can say for sure that in a scenario like that, with a whole steel structure collapsing and the brutal forces at work, steel girders don't break like that - *SNAP*. They might not have had time to bend. This is trivial: You have a metal rod that is very inflexible. You use a machine and bend it slowly. You take another rod and bend it quickly and it breaks. And there's no reason why it should have a tendency to break in a jagged style like seen in silly comics.

 

What I would love to see for entertainment purposes (personal amusement) is a visual simulation of how based on aboveshown physics-based claims the collapse of a tower is supposed to look if you remove the alleged explosives from the equation. Just weaken it to the point of collapse at the impact point. How do people imagine it would look? Like a sugarcone maybe, with all the pulverized concrete stacking onto itself?

I mean, seeeeriously! How much did that building top weigh again? Something like four hundred thousand tons?

Compare with the F4 phantom video again and tell me there were explosives planted in the plane's hull because the dust is flying outwards to all sides.

f4 phantom jet: little mass + huge velocity

wtc building top: little velocity + huge mass

I don't think you have a materials background, but I think all the types of evidence here are important. And they are not mutually-exclusive.

 

Well, wasn't the Pentagon hit by a slightly smaller 757 at probably nearly the same speed?

No need to imagine then - here's what the damage there (minus explosives) looked like:

So, not even a full "demolition" collapse locally, much less of the entire building. No molten girders or slag

. In fact, girders are still seen hanging up on the top floor, as well as adjacent office desks.

 

But this is the typical damage seen from a plane crash or rocket without a warhead. Without explosives, it is simply far more difficult to inflict catastrophic destruction.

 

As you said though, this is merely ONE piece of the puzzle...out of THOUSANDS!!!

Edited March 16, 2013 by vortex

[Owledge]

It is not clear how exactly the alleged plane crashed into the Pentagon. The blackened area could suggest that it was in fast descent and its wings hit the ground or building front, evaporating the fuel over a wide area of mostly free air.

Also, the Pentagon, being THE military headquarters of the USA, was built with an extra-fortified structure.

More generally speaking, I hope you're not suggesting that the WTC and the Pentagon are in any way or SHAPE similar. *wink* *wink*

More in detail - a rocket without a warhead would just punch a hole with minimal collateral damage, depending on the rigidity of the target's structure. And the other things I noted might have been caused by the 'long' collapse of the towers.

 

I've seen some photos and am not sure whether they are photos of the old planned/simulated/practiced attack from decades ago or actually from 9/11, but there was a mention of small scale jet engines. And judging by the crappy CCTV video from outside, that could as well have been a remote-controlled F-16.

Too bad there seem to be no aerial photos of the impact area. I'd like to check details about the second row of buildings and the space in-between 1st and 2nd. My gut-feeling tells me that there should have been some debris there. The amount of information I could find about the Pentagon incident is unsatisfying.

Which again leads to the political realm: Get the criminals out of office and a lot more information would become available.

[Owledge]

Almost forgot I once made this - an inside joke to those in the know and totally misleading for Obama-fans:

 

 

 

This might help, but watching that episode is way more creepy

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0512897/

Edited March 22, 2013 by Owledge