Keys Writings 2013, Part 2

This entry is part 2 of 25 in the series 2013

Jan 17, 2013

Conspiracy Theory Revisited

Blayne: Take 9/11 for instance we have gone over it several times and I have shown people the proof and pointed people to http://www.ae911truth.org that has proven it beyond doubt with overwhelming evidence far more then Sandyhook yet people still claim they don’t “believe” when it is not a matter of belief it is a matter of facts and evidence. Has anyone looked there beyond a cursory look? Apparently not since no one has come back and refuted a single piece of evidence much less the conclusions of 17 hundred architects and engineers…

JJ The solid evidence for a conspiracy at 911 is miniscule compared to Sandy Hook and I have refuted all the major points of 911 and brought up others that no one has refuted.

The evidence for the 911 conspiracy is similar to the moon landing hoax conspiracy where people just find what they are looking for. There are always coincidences and strange facts surface in a major event and even with Sandy Hook 90% of them have a plausible explanation. Maybe the 10% does too but we don’t have the necessary information. I saw no such 10% that defied explanation from 911. Thankfully we have put the moon hoax conspiracy to bed now we have flown satellites over the landing sites and taken pictures. This has convinced all but a few.

Blayne I would beg to differ. You have not refuted a single point on the ae911truth.org site and I have refuted everyone of your points multiple times. 😉

JJ You need to go back and reread our arguments. I think most of the group here would think I refuted them quite substantially.

Blayne:  Of course you think that. However most of those that agree with you just take your word for it.   As I have said no one here including you has refuted a single point on the ae911truth.org site. For those that think they already have please put your money where your mouth is and go to the site there is a nice little list of main points on the front page in the far right column pick anyone of those points and refute them here.   They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the towers fell because it was a controlled demolition, that it was physically impossible for the planes to bring the towers down. That is much better evidence of conspiracy then Sandyhook and that is just the tip of the iceberg.   There is video of BBC news caster reporting tower 7 had fallen when it was in the background still standing and on an on. There is a mountain of evidence you simply choose to ignore.   If I remember right your main claim is that they could have never gotten all that explosives in place. When it doesn’t matter because it been proven they were a controlled demolition.   Go ahead and make my day.. 😉

JJ I haven’t seen any credible evidence at all that the three towers were the act of a controlled demolition. On a believability scale of 1-100 I would rate this belief as a minus 10 – kinda in the category of Jack and the Beanstock. You and Dean are the only two here I know that accept this.

And I have read a lot of material on this and watched a lot of videos.

Blayne:  So the fact that it is physically impossible for the buildings to fall at the speed they did without explosives clearing the path below them before hand simply means nothing to you… LOL!   There you have it illustrating my point once again. Another dodge with a non answer ignoring the facts and evidence and a poor attempt at ridicule to boot to divert attention away from the facts.   Just curious why for as long as we have discussed this off and on have you refused to address a single fact on the ae911truth.org site but instead just make off the wall comments like this?

JJ You sound like the Moon Landing Hoax people and wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t also at one time believe that. They claimed that the moon landing defied the laws of physics and was an impossibility, but guess what? We now have photos of the landing sites proving for sure that we went to the moon. So I guess the laws of physics were not broken after all. Someone just miscalculated – which happens often.

When we argued this subject I covered the points you brought up. If you brought up some at the site you mentioned then I did cover them. I went there today and didn’t see much that was interesting or coherent.

When we discussed this earlier I countered all the points you made and you merely dismissed them or did not reply and moved on to another point claiming I had not answered when I did. Your mind is made up and we have already covered this subject into the ground so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up again and again. Maybe you ought to read some material on the other side like the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.” If you read only the arguments on one side then that’s what you’ll be inclined to believe.

Blayne: You never refuted anything I brought up.

JJ This is completely untrue. I made dozens of posts refuting you and you were oblivious to being refuted. I don’t have time to get sucked into the same tired arguments again that bore most of the people here. I will post some general principles in discovering the truth behind conspiracies.

 

Jan 18, 2013

Forest and the Trees

Arguing about conspiracy theories is rarely productive as both sides usually have their minds made up but one thing they are good for is providing fodder for the seekers to sharpen their ability to perceive truth.

For instance, we either went to the moon or we did not. There is no gray area in the truth here. Those who were fooled by the so-called conspiracy evidence need to reflect and examine their thinking and ask where they went wrong. If a person can be fooled on one proven point then maybe he is fooled on a number of items.

The tricky thing about examining conspiracies is that there are real conspiracies in the world so one is foolish to just dismiss them all out of hand. Each one should be examined for its merit and analyzed. Arguing about conspiracy theories is rarely productive as both sides usually have their minds made up but one thing they are good for is proving fodder for the seekers to sharpen their ability to perceive truth.

That said, what are the major and minor points to consider? Do many miss the forest and only look at the trees? Yes, the big picture is often overlooked and those who are deceived get lost in the details.

Let’s see what we should be looking for if we want to find a real conspiracy composed of shadowy characters pulling strings in the background.

Major point: A shadowy conspiracy that must keep its identity secret must be composed of a small number of people to succeed. The ideal number is three. If there are more than six with a general knowledge of what is going on then the chances of the conspiracy being exposed is great and exponentially increases as more participants are added.

Most of such successful shadow conspiracies in our history have been murdering people who are considered obstacles. A conspiracy to murder has the advantage of only needing a small number of insiders to accomplish the job.

Sandy Hook fits in this category. We do not know if there was a conspiracy but one is possible because it could have been pulled off with three to six insiders.

On the other hand, many conspiracy theories would demand thousands of knowledgeable people participating. Two such conspiracies are the Moon landing and 9/11. Because both of these would demand thousands of participants and hundreds of insiders the mathematical probability of them being credible just from this one principle is so miniscule that they should be dismissed out of hand. The reason these conspiracies have to be very limited in number is that when more than six people are involved the chances of someone spilling the beans becomes high. When dozens or more are involved then you can be sure that the conspiracy will be exposed.

There has never been a proven shadow conspiracy that has involved more than a handful of people.

Conclusion: If you want to find a real shadow conspiracy look for one that can be carried out by a handful of participants.

Minor Point: A detail that doesn’t seem to make sense or seems too coincidental.

Sandy Hook has quite a few of these. For instance we have a picture of one of the dead girls, Emily Parker, showing up after the massacre. Then we have her dad being cheerful and laughing just before an interview.

The moon landing conspiracy claimed that the flag planted by Armstrong waved as in a wind which was impossible. Photos showed no stars in the sky and convinced them the astronauts were in a studio. The angle and color of shadows are inconsistent giving them more supposed proof they were in a studio.

Happenings like this are odd but they can be explained away.

The point is that after every major event anomalies will be discovered. A number of strange coincidences always seems to surface, even in events where it is obvious that no conspiracy exists.

Second major point: Real conspirators rely on tried and proven methods and do not want to try something new that requires great risk or would have a high risk of exposing them.

For instance, if the moon landing was a hoax then it would only be a matter of time before it was exposed by another nation checking out the landing sites. Why would anyone risk such a sure fire exposure?

Conspiracy people claim that the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition, but the largest building ever brought down with explosives was the J.L. Hudson Building in Detroit which was only 22 stories high. The Twin Towers were 110 stories and any technology to bring them down would have been very experimental and unproven. Only a fool would have tried such an unproven method and anyone smart enough to get away with a conspiracy is not a fool.

Minor point: It seems odd that the buildings collapsed as they did.

These details prove nothing because we have never witnessed the destruction of a building this size. Trying to guess all the details from theory is like the scientists trying to guess the results of the first atomic bombs going off. They knew nothing for sure until they actually exploded one and examined the results.

Science thought it was against the laws of physics that the universe could be increasing in the rate of expansion, but they found they were wrong when they discovered the very odd fact that the speed of expansion is increasing.

Observations around events that reveal oddities are the rule rather than the exception. A lot more reliable criteria for making a judgment is to look at the big picture and examine what is logical there.

Keith: Ideally, any crime committed can be best achieved by doing it yourself with nobody involved. Crimes can involve many people and succeed. Caesar’s assassination is an example of more than three persons being involved and succeeding. The Kennedy assassination probably involved more than three

JJ I said that three was the ideal number for a conspiracy, not that you couldn’t have one with a greater number. The larger the number the more awkward it becomes.

LWK did a good job in classifying the conspiracies as those that are intended to be kept secret (as the moon landing and 9/11) and those that require secrecy for a short time followed by the incentive of glory and power such as Caesar’s assassination and Stauffenberg’s group.

Another difference is no one can be proven to have known 911 was coming but Hitler knew there was a conspiracy against him. He suspected some of the players but did not go after them because it would hurt his credibility with the military. He was almost relieved after Stauffenberg’s failed attempt. He stated that he finally could go after the conspirators and still keep the support of the military.

All the main conspiracy accusations today involve shadowing characters that do not want to be discovered before, during or after the event.

If Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy I would guess there were only about a dozen who orchestrated it.

By contrast, the moon hoax would have involved over 100,000 – a mathematical impossibility. 911 would have involved thousands which would have made it impossible to keep secret after the event happened.

Let us suppose Stauffenberg and his group assassinated Hitler and wanted to keep it secret. Could they have succeeded? Not a chance.

Even so the thousands of supposed conspirators with the moon hoax or 911 could not have kept the details secret. We would have all kinds of insiders showing up on Sixty Minutes with disguised voices spilling their guts to clear their guilt.

Blayne:You forgot the Gulf of Tonken hoax that got us into the Vietnam war. They have admitted it never happend and it required hundreds of Naval and army personal to keep it quiet. Or how about Operation North woods? Here is a good list of proven

JJ The Gulf of Tonken and other examples prove my point. It was not kept secret. We now know all about it. Conspirators can often keep a plot secret, but after it is executed people pay attention and the truth comes out if there is a significant number of people who know about it.

It has been a dozen years since 9/11 and if it was a conspiracy as claimed then there would be dozens of the thousands involved who would be willing to talk about it just as many are now happy to talk about the Gulf of Tonken.

Blayne: This still does not explain the fact that the buildings could not fall through their own mass at near free fall speed as if there as nothing below them. Most of the building below where the planes hit was completely intact. Demolition is the only thing that can cause a building to do this as it clears the mass below.

JJ Wrong wrong wrong. Demolition is a thousand miles from explaining it because the technology does not exist to take down buildings like the Twin Towers. Your whole point rests on technology that has no existence and has never been tested.

Blayne; The details prove everything in this case…

JJ Then where are your details explaining an impossible demolition??? I have seen no good details on this that go beyond fantasy thinking.

Keith: If 9/11 was a government conspiracy then the individuals behind it in the U.S. facilitated the terrorist attack for their own ends. I do not think they organized the attack from the ground up. They became aware of the pending attack which they could have prevented and deliberately let it happen. If the buildings were demolished by explosives after the planes hit, then the conspirators used their black-ops network to carry it out.

JJ At least you are presenting something that is a possibility here. It is possible some in inner circles knew an attack was coming and did nothing to suit their own purposes.

On the other hand, you think the regular 9/11 conspiracy could have been carried out by few dozen people. This is not possible. There would have been hundreds involved in planning and planting the explosives. There would have been hundreds of soldiers involved in faking the planes and capturing and executing the passengers as claimed.

There would have been hundreds more who participated in faking the phone calls from the planes. This doesn’t count the masterminds who had to include hundreds more in their circle. If it was a conspiracy as claimed I would suspect that there are thousands who could expose it.

 

Jan 18, 2013

Unbelievable

Here is an excerpt from my book illustrating the improbability of orthodox conspiracy theory and 9/11.

So, here’s the situation they present: Bush, the supposed dumbest president in history, was a major player in a conspiracy that involved the cooperation of thousands of participants, pulled off the most infamous disaster in history, and never got caught. Thousands of people are pointing fingers at him, trying to nail him, but he is outsmarting them all, great genius that he is.

Here’s the conspiracy story in a nutshell: Bush and Cheney, in cooperation with invisible power brokers and the military, arranged the hijacking of four planes – Flights 93, 77, 175 and 11. Somehow, after they took off, they were mysteriously snatched out of the skies and taken to an undisclosed location. At this location, the passengers were killed and disposed. The planes were also destroyed, obviously completely pulverized that very day to prevent any recognizable piece from being later used as evidence to the crime.

This was an ingenious accomplishment on the part of Bush and other conspirators when you take into account the whistle blowers at minor atrocities such as Abu Ghraib. 9/11 was much bigger than making men perform tricks while naked.

Just imagine being in the military and designated as one of those disposing of the passengers. Four planes land and all the hundreds of passengers are unloaded and lined up to be shot. You and dozens of others are to kill them and dispose of the bodies. Isn’t it amazing that not one of them has anonymously spoken to the press?

After the planes were snatched out of the air, an amazing thing occurred. They were replaced by missiles or special pods created by the government. These missiles were painted and fixed up to look like planes, but were not planes. These missiles had no passengers on board, but were specially designed to accomplish the evil deed.

They had to make it appear that the passengers were still on board to the end so they faked phone calls made from passengers to loved ones on the ground. All the dozens of loved ones involved were fooled into thinking they were talking to the real person because the government somehow knew in advance who was going to be on each plane and duplicated the correct voices in advance using voice technology. Conspiracy people do not even ask how a bungling bureaucracy can even manage to successfully retrieve the phone numbers of the correct loved ones to call, let alone make them think a computer voice is a family member.

I don’t know about you, but if a computer called me pretending to be my wife, I think I could tell if I was talking to her or not.

The missiles then went about to accomplish their evil mission. The first was substituted for Flight 93 and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

What was that about? I know if I were a conspirator, the last thing I would do is to go through all that trouble just to crash a missile in a field. Strange.

The second, the substitute for Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon. What was that about? The military attacking itself? Oh, yeah… that was just to remove suspicion. That really worked, didn’t it? Even though dozens of people saw a plane, some even close enough to see the passengers, they were fooled. It was really a missile.

The other two missiles, which replaced Flights 175 and 11, plowed into the two Twin Towers buildings. Though millions of people saw the video of this, what they saw were not planes, but missiles or specially built pods that landed in just the right places to not interfere with the planned explosive demolition.

Explosive demolition?

Yes, and this is the amazing part. The conspiracy people believe that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by a controlled demolition by the use of pre-planted explosives. Even though the largest demolition by explosives has been just over 20 stories, the conspirators decided to go for the Guinness Book of World Records. They increased that record not twice, or four times, but over five times and did it simultaneously with not one building, but two, along with a smaller record-breaking building on the side.

They didn’t care that the technology for such an unknown feat had not been perfected or tested. Instead, they recklessly went ahead blowing up the buildings, just hoping everything would work as planned. This would have indeed been a dumb thing to do, but it turned out that Bush was extremely lucky that things worked out.

Planting the explosives was the difficult part and really illustrates the hidden genius of Bush to have pulled this off.

Hundreds of workers with blow torches and construction tools would have had to enter the buildings and, without being seen, tear out the walls in thousands of locations in each of the Twin Towers. Then they would have had to pull out blowtorches and cut out “V” notches in the thousands of steel beams that supported the towers.

Next, they would have had to wire one explosive charge to another in thousands of locations, destroying and disrupting offices as they moved along. After this, they would have had to repair their destructive work before each worker entered his office again. The repair would have had to be so seamless that none of the thousands of people in the Twin Towers would notice that any changes were made.

Even more amazing is that none of the hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of demolition workers have spilled their guts. Not one of them has gone to the press to become the hero of the ages. Maybe the conspirators had the military kill them all.

Again, the question arises. When the military lined up and gunned down all the demolition workers, was there not one of the assassins that had a prick in his conscience and was willing to tell his story?

I guess not.

It must have been the genius of Bush that pulled this all off so seamlessly.

If you believe this is the way 9/11 really happened, then I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.

Sorry, I do not have time to answer all the time consuming questions. Instead, just google the answers or go here:

We have already covered this subject to death and I have no interest i repeating what I have already said.

 

Jan 19, 2013

Re: Forest and the Trees

Blayne: The Gulf of Tonken incident did not come to light for decades Along with many other incidents…. there goes your point. There have been dozens willing to talk about it.

JJ The truth of the Gulf of Tonkin was available from the beginning. A number of insiders tried to reveal the truth. Senator Wayne Morse had an informant shortly after the incident that revealed the truth to him, but wasn’t able to stop us going to war. The 9/11 incident was much more massive and would have involved many more people but we have no Senator or member of Congress claiming to have an informant giving us details of a conspiracy.

Not one insider has come forward with any testimony on a 9/11 conspiracy let alone evidence of a demolition. If your belief were true many would have come forward by now.

JJ Quote Wrong wrong wrong. Demolition is a thousand miles from explaining it because the technology does not exist to take down buildings like the Twin Towers. Your whole point rests on technology that has no existence and has never been tested.

Blayne: Yet the fact remains they fell at near free fall speed mainly into their own footprint. The only way that could happen is to have their mass below them cleared out of the way and the only tech that we know of that can do that is controlled demolition.

JJ You keep bringing up this freefall doctrine just like you did a couple years ago when we covered it thoroughly. We both gave our explanations and now you want to do the dance all over again. Why? You’re not giving any additional light this time around.

The last time I gave you this reference: LINK

And here is a more recent one illustrating that the freefall was not such a freefall after all.

 

Of course the conspiracy people counter this but unconvincingly.

Blayne: Also I wonder why you think taking down the towers would be any different then any other high rise? The tech has existed for decades.

JJ You have absolutely no proof of this. Either prove it or quit making this claim from the seat of your pants.

JJ Quote: Then where are your details explaining an impossible demolition??? I have seen no good details on this that go beyond fantasy thinking.

Blayne I have posted them many times.

JJ Strange. You keep saying this but I have not seen it. Has anyone else?

You then want to bring up many details that we have already discussed. If you want my answers on the rest of your questions go back two years and read my posts. They are still there.

I will add this interesting quote from the popular Mechanics book on the subject of demolition.

“if you look at any building that is imploded, the explosives are primarily placed on the ground floor and the basement,” Loizeaux (a demolition expert) says. “Why? Because you want to remove the columns when you have the majority of that stored potential energy above where you’re taking the columns out. You want to release as much energy as possible. if you look at the collapse of these structures, they start collapsing up where the planes hit. They don’t start collapsing down -below.” Loizeaux says even if explosives had been placed on the upper floors, they would have generated significantly more dust and debris than mere “puffs.”

Despite his credentials as a physicist, Jones is among those who make faulty assumptions about controlled demolition. in putting forth his case that the buildings were brought down with explosives, Jones writes: “Roughly 29000 pounds of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges (which could have been pre-positioned by just a few men) would then suffice in each Tower and WTC 7 to cut the supports at key points so that gravity would bring the buildings straight down.”

According to Loizeaux, Jones is simply wrong. “The explosives configuration manufacturing technology [to bring down those buildings] does not exist,” Loizeaux says. “If someone were to attempt to make such charges, they would weigh thousands of pounds apiece. You would need forklifts to bring them into the building.”

The biggest commercially available charges, Loizeaux tells Popular Mechanics, are able to cut through steel that is three inches thick. The, box columns at the base of the World Trade Center towers were 14 inches on a side. If big enough charges did exist, Loizeaux says, for each tower it could hypothetically take as long as two months for a team of up to 75 men with unfettered access to three floors to strip the fireproofing off the columns and then place and wire the charges.

“There’s just no way to do it,” Loizeux says, adding that it is similarly implausible that explosives could he smuggled into the buildings. “If you just put bulk explosives in file cabinets next to every column in the building, it wouldn’t knock those columns down. It would blow the windows out. It would trash the [building] and probably blow out two floors above and a floor below . . but it wouldn’t knock the [buildingl down.”

 

Jan 19, 2013

If It Will Save One Life

I’ve always hated the “save one life” argument. The Left uses it as an emotional argument often to take us away from freedom. They used it to create the irritating 55 MPH speed limit and all kinds of regulations. They have spent up to a billion dollars to save a life with nuclear energy regulations where for about a hundred bucks they could save a sick kid in Central America.

 

Jan 19, 2013

Re: 9/11 Analysis

Dean You should have already researched it.

JJ I have researched supposed whistle blowers before but new attempts at supplying them come up all the time. None from any insider and none with any convincing evidence.

Dean: I already gave you witnesses in the link, there is many more I didn’t reference, but you are so much in denile so nothing will help you?

JJ You’re dreaming of another reality. Just make a feeble attempt to give us one actual whistle blower that goes beyond someone hearing a noise, hearsay or something. Give me one like the actual witness to the Gulf of Tonkin that was on the ship and spilled his guts to Senator Morse. Maybe you could supply a soldier feeling guilty for gunning down the passengers of the planes after they were miraculously snatched from the air – or maybe someone who fabricated the cell phone calls or helped plant the explosives etc.

Blayne’s whistleblowers “FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, the most gagged woman in America, having the State Secrets Privilege imposed on her twice, went public last year to reveal that Bin Laden maintained “intimate” relations with the US right up until 9/11.

JJ It’s common knowledge we supported Ben Laden during the Russian war with Afghanistan and if we kept some links going that proves nothing. This gal was no insider with any knowledge of a conspiracy.

Blayne: Another whistleblower is former Sergeant in the United States Army named Lauro “LJ” Chavez. Chavez was stationed at MacDill AFB where he claims he witnessed unusual preparations for a potential airplane hitting the base on the morning of 9/11 and distinctly heard officers talking about a stand down. This led him to go public in questioning the NORAD stand down and the demolition of the twin towers.”

JJ Again, a million miles from an insider. Lots of people have heard strange stuff. Listen to Coast to Coast and you’ll be amazed, but observations and hearsay does not prove a conspiracy.

As I said, out of the thousands that had to be involved not one with real knowledge has come forth. Surely one of the hundreds that had to plant the explosives would feel enough guilt to come forward. The fact that no one has ought to tell you something.

Good information on the black boxes is here:

Blayne: Again if no conspiracy can exist without an original conspirator coming forward how did the Manhattan Project stay secret?

JJ The Manhattan project didn’t stay secret. Right after the bomb hit Hiroshima everyone knew about it.

It is fairly easy to keep preparations a secret but after they are executed it is another matter. After 9/11 was executed some participants would normally come forth – particularly rank and file workers just doing their job planting explosives.

JJ Of course the argument made in the video is invalid. The speed of a transfer of force is faster than freefall which explains the supposedly strange data.

Blayne: You have never gotten past the fact that it is physically impossible for a plane and low grade fire to bring down a metal framed building much less the speed of the fall. Yet you continue to thumb your nose at over 1700 architects and engineers informing you of that fact… Talk about fantasy land geeze..

JJ Nothing to get over. It fell at the speed it fell whatever that was for there seems to be lack of agreement on this except for certain truthers who are always 100% sure they have the facts right.

This is just like the moon hoax conspiracy except the moon hoax people had better evidence.

To calculate what an event would accomplish when it was a one of a kind event often results in occurrences that baffle calculations.

Keith listed a number of them from the Moon Hoax but at least he accepts the photographic evidence of the landing sites we now have. The laws of physics were not violated. Instead many just either calculated incorrectly or used bad data in the process.

True believers will never prove their 9/11 conspiracy theories because they make no sense. 20 years from now we will still have no insider whistle blower and the truthers will continue with this same tired debate.

On Sept 11, 2010 we started going back and forth on this subject for about two weeks through about 200 posts. I’ve tried to not repeat myself this round but I think we have covered this enough so unless some really significant new material is presented this will be my last post on this subject for some time to come.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Series NavigationKeys Writings 2013, Part 1Keys Writings 2013, Part 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.