"Okay--how hard would it have been to simply fake those manifests, and
release ones that do include the hijackers'"

PLUS:

"The hijackers weren't victims, they were perpetrators; and
furthermore, if you do look at what are the real passenger manifests
(you can download the one from Flight 77 here) you will find the
hijackers on them."~Muertos

EQUALS:
You have left yourself mid-air here Muertos.

And when I hear all this whiny shit about "tin hat conspiracy nuts", I
am compelled to remind of one of the greatest conspiracy theorists of
all, Thomas Jefferson, and his famous conspiracy charges against the
Crown of England in 1776.

Why is this forgotten? Because of the way in which history is framed
in the modern Public Relations Regime.

~Willy Whitten, CONSPIRACY FACTUALIST

>I have never pointed to the 'victims lists' as significant. And it doesn't matter in relation to the point I made to you as to the rhetorical possiblities of faking a manifest. It is indeed possible and quite probable.
>To assert that the 'theories' are "unsupportable" is absurd.

>It is hardly ridiculous to claim that the Declaration of Independence is a charge of conspiracy to reduce the colonies to slavery. That the founding scholars understood the systemic nature of this conspiracy, "the political and economic motives of British politicians", and also the Crown and its bank and the corporations that had grown up around it.
Whether the term used is "conspiracy theory" or "systemic analysis" is
a matter of the defamation of a perfectly reasonable term, a legal
term; "conspiracy."
>It is only "nonsensical," to those who are ignorant of social engineering and the use of Public Relations for 'perception manipulation' of the mass mind of the populace of this nation.

Public Relations is a term coined by Edward Bernays, the author of the
slim volume titled PROPAGANDA. Bernays is known in the corporat
advertizing world as "the Father of Spin."

"Conspiracy Theorists' Top 10 Misconceptions of Debunkers"

>Translation; Top 10 Strawmen for Debunkers

ww

--

"In short, it has nothing to do with a supposed dearth of evidence.
It has everything to do with prosecutorial strategy regarding how, and
particularly where, a suspect is indicted."~Muertos

This directly contradicts what FBI public relations man Rex Tomb
explained in his phone interview. He explained that the Justice
Department did not think there was enough evidence against bin Laden
for an indictment for the attacks on 9/11. It is therefore only your
misinformed assumption pertaining to "prosecutorial strategy."

ww

--

As to the subject of forged documents:

The agency has been linked to the assassination in 1963 of Ngo Dinh
Diem, the then president of South Vietnam, and of his brother Nhu. The
Diems were killed in October 1963. [The coup de grace came on November
2.]

During the summer of 1971 Charles Colson and E. Howard Hunt, among
others, were interested in seeing what could be done to forge and
alter official State Department messages to make it appear that
President John F. Kennedy was directly implicated in these
assassinations.
[ Colson admits this in his own book, THE ENDS OF POWER]

This is an important point. If the White House wanted so badly to tie
in a dead president to that plot, it must have known then that
President Kennedy was not involved and that records proved that he
wasn't.

The timing of this "dirty tricks" project is interesting.
In 1963 Hunt was an active CIA agent and was deeply involved with the
then former Director of Central Intelligence, Allen Dulles, whom
Kennedy had fired.
ww

--

Sheeple Argument.

The use of the word "sheeple" is derived from a take off on the title
of the 1961 book by William J. Lederer, A NATION OF SHEEP.

In this volume Lederer documents the staging of "wag the dog"
operations in South East Asia, particularly in Laos and the bordering
areas of Vietnam. He shows how 'reports' on these staged events are
manipulated by the intelligence services to eventually filter back
into the western press as a political propaganda tool.

Lerderer was the co-author of the best seller THE UGLY AMERICAN.

While I am not in the habit of using the term "sheeple", the benifits
and deficits of the concept can be discussed if you chose.
ww

The truth of the matter is that NIST refutes itself. The modeling of
the "collapse" is only to the point of what NIST refers to as
"initiation", that is the point at which the upper stories supposedly
collapse straight down onto the remaining intact building.
By it's own admission NIST did NOT model the collapse of the entire
structure. It was their mandate to discover how it was that the towers
and bldg 7 were destroyed. They failed to do so completely.
It is a misnomer to refer to their modeling to a point of "initiation"
if what is initiated is not proven.

But this assertion by NIST that the upper stories crashed straight
down like a giant piston is debunked by the visual evidence itself.
This evidence is legion and shows that the upper portion is turned to
dust and fractured beams being ejected laterally from the very
beginning of the event.
This view is backed up by the physical evidence shown in the FEMA
Debris Map which shows that no more than 10 percent of the heavy
debris ended up within the footprint of either tower., with the major
portions of it strewn across the entire 13 acre complex and beyond.
And the concrete was literally blown all over Manhattan.

That NIST was compromised by political pressures is impossible to
discount in view of this utter failure to provide a complete analysis
of the total destruction of those buildings.

This is just a simple preview of the problems of the NIST
investigation. There are more technical repudiations as well.

---

Somehow I lost the beginning of the last post which was a preamble to
the remarks about NIST. I will reconstruct as best I can here.
>I brought up the issue about the forging of documents by inside agents in the government {Halderman} for the simple reason of establishing that in is in no way novel for such tactics to be used. This relates to the possibility of forged manifests and I said so in my email.
>No, not at all, I do not want this conversation to be based in animus at all.
I am not accusing you of anything but being wrong.

"iron microspheres"

>No undetonated thermitic material.

"free-fall speed"

>As the event took place in the atmosphere and not a vacuum, this argument is misconstrued by both "Truthers" and "Debunkers"--but as a matter of physics the fact the the buildings 'collapsed' at all is impossible, let alone in less than a minute.
>Well this is simply a fact, and even NIST makes the point that the fires were never any hotter than a common office fire.
But this leaves the problem of melted steal in the basements which is
verifiable fact.

"As for the prosecutorial strategy, I am a former attorney.."

I only brought up "prosecutorial strategy" in relation to the
statements from the FBI concerning the reasons that bin Laden was not
charged with the attacks on 9/11.
That you are an attorney is neither here nor there to me. But for any
attempts at appeals to authority, of course.

I had also mentioned that I am independent--I have all the time in the
world to do whatever I wish. If you have time constraints, that is
fully appreciated.
You can answer or not anytime you wish to.

Yours, Willy Whitten

>This is mere assertion. Is this really the way you wish to argue this, by empty pronouncement?

"..what we know about 9/11 does not depend on what NIST did or did not
>I am familiar with every aspect of the case. I have been an intelligence analyst for some 40 years. I knew that this was a systemic false flag operation on day one simply following the 'script' as it unfolded on the media.

"CIA wrongdoing -- this argument is fallacious..." [and the rest of this stanza]

>It has absolute bearing on 9/11, as the event is not substantially different than any other nefarious activities of the system in anything other than scale.
>No fire can burn or start a fire of materials that are of a flashpoint higher than the fire around it. None of the materials you mention can possibley affect steel without creating the conditions available in a blast furnace. Such conditions were simply not available in the towers.
difference..."

>Lets can the condensending remarks at this point. Alright? I am well aware of the physics involved in this. You make one glaring error in these matters, and that is that the structural weaknesses you point to only apply to the stories that had the actual fires.
The entire structure beneath should have been in pristine
condition--no structural weakening at all can be postulated for the
lower stories of either tower.

And again, as the visual evidence clearly shows, the upper stories did
not fall straight down on them as a massive piston. Look at the
pictures yourself--if the plumes and heavy materials are not the mass
of the upper stories, what do you propose they are?

Now, if you want to get into al Qaeda, you cannot begin on 9/11, you
must go back to the late 70s when the Soviets were propping up a
puppet regime.

This history is not secret, the machinations of Brzezinski in the
creation of the Mujaheddin fighting force that became al Qaeda [a
reference to the 'computer base' listing such fighters] It must be
taken into consideration that these groups are the creation of western
intelligence from that point forward.

Your problem is you don't know the history hidden beneath what finally
manifest in the 9/11 "attacks".
You wish to hand wave the entire history of false flag operations, and
in doing so put yourself in a false perspective.

Continuing to refer to Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin as
"conspiracy nutbars" is simple argumentum ad hominem. The assertions
that you have debunked them seven years ago I see as quite a display
of hubris.
Tit for tat, aye?

I will read your article "what-do-we-know", and you can be sure I will
return with a critique of it.

Until then, sweet dreams, W. Whitten

--

Alright Los, I have read the first page, it is passable--but other
possiblilities exist and I will bring them to you shortly.

I am as certain as you, two aircraft hit the two towers. Yet there
are, outside of this prosecutorial brief, other testimonies and
evidences that may be brought to the bench {as it were}

It is when we get to the second page however that the dispute arrises
in earnest.
And I will make a full accounting of those disputes as time allows.

Meanwhile I will continue reading your brief.

ww

--

I had written this before your last response, and decided to hold off
on it until I addressed your latest.
But here it is for what it is worth:

"I use the George Washington example. I know that George Washington
was the first President of the United States. If asked to, I can
prove that fact is true."~Los

>But, you must add the caveat that Washington was the first president of the United States *under the new constitution*. There were several Presidents of the Continental Congress and three Presidents of the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

If you leave out real history, even by subtle defaults such as this
one, how reliable are the rest of your arguments? This may seem
esoteric to you, but I am making the point, that as a lawyer your
comprehension of history, of physics, of engineering may be equally as
flawed as they are all subtle crafts and knowledge.

ww

I have no need of an argument other than your use of the term "so-called".
If you consider the United States as beginning in 1789, and disregard
the previous history on rhetorical basis, that is up to you.
They certainly didn't have the same extant of powers as the
Constitutional grant, I will go along with you there.

I have a critique of the following, which I anticipate will end our
dialog as I cannot help but be candidly harsh in my appraisal, as I
consider it a piece of lawyerly doublespeak/Newspeak and spurious.

******>>

[1]Conspiracy theorists almost always conflate and confuse real
examples of government or corporate secrecy or wrongdoing with
perceived examples. [2] They ignore the differences, which are
important. To them, the fact that anybody, anywhere in government
suggested or successfully took a covert or illegal action makes it
more likely that someone must have in some other case--even if the
transgression in the past is proven, and the one the conspiracy
theorist believes happened is not. [3]There's also a difference in
scale and result. If the CIA did something that was dishonest 50
years ago that was comparatively minor in scope and didn't result in
any deaths or crimes being committed, a conspiracy theorist will use
the small long-ago transgression to "demonstrate" that it's likely the
CIA would be willing to commit murder or criminal activity on a vast
scale.

Let's take an example. Conspiracy theorists love [4]Operation
Northwoods. This was a plan proposed by some military brass in a 1962
document which would have had the CIA fake terrorist incidents and
blame them on Cuban forces, thus building public support for U.S.
military action against Cuba. [5]President John F. Kennedy rejected
the plan out of hand and the officer who suggested it was later
relieved of his command. [6]The document was not declassified until
1998.

[7] Why is this not a conspiracy theory? Well, first off, it was
rejected; it never got off the ground. [8]Second, it was not even
known about until the 1990s. [9] It's not like some conspiracy
theorists were sitting around in 1962, batting scenarios around and
someone said, "Hmm, you know, I bet the CIA is planning to stage
false-flag attacks against the U.S. to justify an invasion of Cuba!"
and then magically, 36 years later, a document drops out of the sky
that proves this speculation was correct all along.

--

I'm going to be just flat out candid here, because this whole stanza
that I refer to has got to be one of the biggest loads of doublespeak
bullshit I have ever encountered.
perceived examples."

>What the fuck are you saying here? If it is real conspiracy then it isn't a real conspiracy, it is merely "government or corporate secrecy or wrong doing"??? yea, this is legally pigally bullshit, "always conflate"...Always?? Such a gross generalization is remarkable coming from a supposedly intelligent and learned barrister.

[2a] "They ignore the differences, which are important. To them, the
have in some other case--[2b] even if the transgression in the past is
proven, and the one the conspiracy theorist believes happened is not."

[2a]>If any other criminal enterprise, say the mafia were attended to
in this fashion, it might be argued, as J. edger Hoover argued that
"there is no such thing as the mafia." You are attempting to separate
the systemic criminal enterprise that is the CIA, and pretend that the
individual characters within that org., even at high managerial levels
are simply acting on their own.

[2b]> This is the same pretense--that you KNOW is not treated this way
in criminal law, that a history of criminality does indeed have
bearing on the probabilities of continued criminal activities by the
perpetrator. It is known as Modus operandi [and you damn well know it]
murder or criminal activity on a vast scale."

[3]>This is an asserted theoretical on your part. I certainly do not
make such blatant mistakes of reason. And this is one of the errors of
your thesis here, that "conspiracy theorist" are a contiguous mass, or
an organized system of dogmatic thinkers.
for U.S. military action against Cuba."

[4]> "Some military brass"? No, the Chiefs of Staff; the Highest
military brass. This subtle rhetorical turning is really insidious.
Yes, let us be clear here; these fake terrorist incidents were spelled
out in great detail and involved the murder of American citizens in
American cities. A false-flag air hijacking, reminiscent of a famous
later event was also envisioned in this white paper, among quite a
list of other criminal and violent activities.
[5]> Ah, end of affair. Not quite, and this will be addressed in the
further numbered responses.
[6]> The Northwoods document was released by mistake in a file that
got into the hands of James Bamford a national security researcher. It
was only declassified after Bamford made it public in the Puzzle
Palace, an expose on the NSA.
[7]> The fact that Northwoods was rejected by Kennedy had great
repercussions in the military and intelligence community. Kennedy was
seen by many as "soft on Communism", and there was dissension up and
down the ranks which was already brewing since the Bay of Pigs fiasco
in 1961, which Kennedy had inherited form the previous administration,
that had been planned with Nixon in mind as the torch bearer to
continue these covert machinations, involving plots to kill Castro
under the JMWAVE. This is linked to Operation Mongoose, which is now
viewed by researchers as a turn-around operation that led to the
assassination of Kennedy himself. Considered a coup d'etat by most
knowledgeable researchers.
One of these being Colonel Fletcher Prouty, who worked directly under
General Lansdale--the major force and probable author of the Northwoods
plan.

[8] >It wasn't known about by the public, but it was certainly known
about by the operatives themselves, especially the anti-Castro Cubans
who worked closely with Lansdale and Theodore Shackley the Miami CIA
station chief.
[9]>It is this framing of "conspiracy theory" that seems tho most
spurious and twisted of all of your remarks. Of course there would
have been interested parties with very much those sort of suspicions.
Researchers such as {*}William J. Lederer, {+}David Wise and Thomas B.
Ross, {~}John Marks, May Brussels and many others. Although I doubt if
these would consider themselves "conspiracy theorists", as the term
hadn't been skunk dipped and spun into the public consciousness at
that early time.

{*]}A Nation of Sheep, 1961

{+} The Invisible Government, 1964

{~} The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, 1979

ww