Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson set for 9/11 'truther' film September Morn

[corksean]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NancyBlueINOklahoma (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Guardian (UK)

Hollywood is to court controversy with a film that will challenge the official version of the events of 9/11, a previously taboo topic for the industry mainstream. Martin Sheen, Woody Harrelson and Ed Asner, who have all supported conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks, have signed up to the movie, which is entitled September Morn.

Styling itself as a drama in the tradition of Twelve Angry Men, the film's advance publicity note hints at a cover-up, saying: "We the people demand that the government revisit and initiates a thorough and independent investigation to the tragic events of 911."

Details of the film, which is to be directed by BJ Davis and written by Howard Cohen, are expected to be revealed at an American Film Market conference in Los Angeles next week, Deadline.com reported.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/oct/17/martin-sheen-woody-harrelson-9-11-truther

[DollarBillHines]

1. It's about time

If it wasn't MIHOP

It was LIHOP

Anyone who thinks different should get back to "24" or American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, Bachelor, or whatever.

[truthisfreedom]

2. Yeah but it's ridiculous because the election will be over before the film is cast.

goofballs.

[DollarBillHines]

4. There should be some light shown on this...

a huge fuck-up which resulted in a change of our day-to-day life.

They Let It Happen (or worse) in order of changing the way we live our lives.

[hack89]

37. You want to drag 9/11 into a close election?

How exactly will this will help President Obama?

[Ter]

50. Why would it matter?

You think Romney was in on 9/11 too?

[99th_Monkey]

3. I'm glad they're doing this film & hope it's a big hit. ~nt

[eridani]

5. Myself, I've aays thought that MIHOP was a plot to discredit the more plausible LIHOP n/t

[harun]

55. +1

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

6. So glad to see this...

AE911Truth.org

[MrSlayer]

7. Cool. Hopefully it's done properly.

Not some cheap ass bullshit like the Atlas Shrugged garbage.

[graham4anything]

8. I don't like the way D.H. worded this...but anything martin & ed are in, I see.

Martin & Ed are two American patriots through life.

Glad Martin found immortality with Jeb and Apocolypse Now. (was it only me that thought the current "The Master" was a 2012 insane version of Apoc?)

Glad Ed found immortality with Up!(Kids of all ages will see that movie 100 years from now)
and former major liberal head of the actor's union.

Henry Fonda starred as juror #8 in Twelve Angry Men.
If you never saw that movie, however you see movies, do so pronto.
Henry Fonda was one of the true heroes of the liberals in life.(a fact sometimes forgotten).

Same with someone I have referenced recently Burgess Meredith, perhaps one of the five greatest actors of all time, an actor's actor, relegated to lesser roles, and hammy roles like the Penquin on the Batman 60stv. (but immortal because of it).
See among 100s of other things, his twilight zone "Time enough at last" as Mr. bemis.

the other guy cast is not a personal favorite, but he was good in that movie portraying Larry Flynt.

But it would be nice if before he leaves the world, both Ed and Martin win an Academy award.

[Cha]

9. Whatever happened, the bush-cheney crew were at the

very least Negligent to the extreme. With a bushel full of excuses and then lied to get into War on Iraq.

They aren't even called out by the majority for not keeping us safe. If it had happened on a Dem Watch..the gops wouldn't have stood with the Dem Prez like Americans stood with bush until he whacked himself lying into Iraq.

I, of course, was a member of the 10% club who didn't stand with el fake-o.

[CrispyQ]

64. +1

I lost friends for being in the 10% club & I didn't give a shit. Still don't.

[Cha]

84. I think a lot of us 10%ers were

on DU.

[Tunkamerica]

10. i have to say, the writer and director do not have many great credits under their belt

though both have worked in the industry for a long time.

[StarryNite]

11. This could be their breakthrough movie.

It really is about time for a movie like this. Something...lots of things are very wrong with the 'official' story.

[dballance]

12. Sorry to be ignorant but what are MIHOP and LIHOP?

On another note I've always thought building 7 was rather a curious phenomenon. Also, I've read of reports that the firefighters were told to evacuate the building because they were going to "pull it." Which is apparently a term used by demolition crews about blowing the building in a controlled demolition. That is having the building collapse in on itself much the same way the towers did and so many of those buildings we see on TV that are demolished by professionals.

We have been lied to for 11 years.

[cali]

15. Made it happen on purpose/let it happen on purpose

[Chemisse]

19. Thanks. I was wondering too.

[The Doctor.]

13. One thing I certainly hope they address:

The last nail went in the coffin on the OV when I heard the NPR whitewash aired to deride the 'truthers'.

The issue of nano-thermite was brought up.

It was found in the debris. Everywhere. They know it, they can't hide it and they know they can't hide it. There are samples at laboratories all over the world now. The genie is out.

But they try to gloss it over anyway. They have to.

Their blatant attempts at misdirection was proof of their own awareness.

They said, "Well, sure there was 'thermite', because thermite is just aluminum and iron oxide and of course there was aluminum and rust from ground zero...."

No. There was nano-thermite, which is manufactured, and they know it. Thus the attempts to re-categorize it.

Then they said, "Thermite can't be used in demolitions.", which is true. Thing is they deliberately changed the subject from nano-thermite, which can be used to demolish buildings and relied on the ignorance and obliviousness of their audience not to recognize the distinction, to 'thermite'.

Then they said that the samples that were tested were 'paint chips', which is true.... sort of. The researchers had both samples of paint chips and nano-thermite from the debris and tested both. There was no question about the difference between the paint chips that resisted ignition and the nano-thermite which ignited at much lower temperatures than the paint chips and burned at temperatures consistent with thermite.

The blatant and deliberate misdirection, obfuscation, and abject derision by the OV proponents sealed the case for me that day.

They know there's no denying that one critical discovery, so all they have left is misdirection, obfuscation, and bullshit.

[hack89]

41. There are some 9/11 Truthers who question nano-thermite

In an effort to confirm the claims being made about thermite and nanothermite, T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer from both the space program and chemical industry, decided to investigate its use as an explosive. In addition to doing his own study, he has repeatedly written to leading 9/11 researchers who champion the use of nanothermite as the principal (if not exclusive) mechanism for bringing about the destruction of the Twin Towers, probing them on the explosive capabilities of nanothermite. The replies he has received suggest that this is an issue they are unwilling to examine fully and openly.

As Hightower observed to Gage, however: “This paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT (22,600 feet per second) can be produced by the nanothermites as described and presented. On page 10, it states, ‘One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.’" What Hightower was asking Gage was: “How can a substance be an explosive and not be able to do pressure/volume work on an object – that is, move an object?” Gage responded: “The nanothermite was set in a bed of organic silica, which I believe the authors suggest may provide the explosive pressure/volume work. In addition, I believe that the authors are quite open to the possibility that other more high-energy explosives may have been used.”

Without further characterization, the “bed of organic silica” is not a sufficient explanation, so the possibility is raised that “other more high-energy explosives may have been used.” Surely thermite or nanothermite would become explosive if combined with bona fide explosives. Hightower decided to take an even closer look at the claims advanced on behalf of nanothermite, and has spent several months researching everything he could find in the open literature. Again and again, he found that thermite, even in its nano form, unless combined with high explosives or another high-explosive mechanism, cannot be a high explosive.

So if nanothermite is to be the “smoking gun” of 9/11, it would have had to have been combined with some form of high-power explosives or other high-explosive mechanism to do the job of bringing the buildings down. What was it combined with? By itself, nanothermite cannot have been the sole agent of demolition – it was only another “helper.” By itself, therefore, nanothermite cannot be “explosive evidence,” as AE911 Truth maintains.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html

This is not settled science by any stretch of the imagination.

[The Doctor.]

73. Hahahahaaaa!

You guys remind me of the global warming deniers who say, "There is no global warming!" on one hand and, "We didn't cause the global warming!", on the other.

Okay, so you gave up the deliberately misleading notion that all the scientists tested were 'paint chips'.

You had to.

You gave up trying to substitute 'thermite' for 'nano-thermite'.

You had to.

I don't remember if you also suggested that the nano-thermite found was mere 'rust and aluminum', but it was one of the tactics some of you guys tried.

You obviously can't use that piece of bullshit anymore.


So now here you are saying that 'mere nano-thermite requires other substances' in order to be used for demolitions. Let's forget for a moment that the 9/11 "investigation" didn't look for evidence of any explosives, let alone a staging agent for nano-thermite. Let's forget for a moment that independent scientists only test the nano-thermite that was found and also weren't looking for other agents you claim demolition would require. Let's just focus on the glaringly obvious question:

[font color=red][font size=6]WTF was [font size=8]NANO-THERMITE[/font] doing in the debris?!?!?[/font][/font]

I mean, seriously? This is all you have left? "Well, it couldn't have been the nano-thermite found because we don't know if the other necessary substances were present...."

Really?

We know that posting here is just part of your job. We know that you're all about shutting down substantive discussion on 9/11, mass election fraud, and essentially any other frightening reality that can still be obfuscated in some way. Gotta give you props for tenacity.

If you would be so kind as to alert on this post for insinuating that you're a troll (which you are), it would be great to get 6 random people to read this exchange and become thus enlightened.

Attention 6 random people: If you find it difficult and disturbing to accept that nano-thermite was found in the debris, Hack89 will be all too happy to feed you just enough bullshit to set your mind at ease.... if you accept it.

[hack89]

78. I am not saying anything - merely quoting a Truther

the fight is inside your tent. Let me know when the movement comes to a consensus.

[The Doctor.]

89. Nice try.

You probably can fool many people with that canard, but not me.

You see, there is no 'fight'. That's your own invention. Yes, some idiot is saying that because we didn't look for other agents then we can't know for certain that the nano-thermite that was found in the debris was used in the demolition.

Here's where your supposed 'controversy' falls apart:

- No one is denying that nano-thermite was found in the debris.
- He's not denying the building was demolished by means other than planes.
There is no 'fight' there.


Your technique here is identical to the technique that global warming denial propagandists use: They take some disagreement between scientists over a methodology used or how a conclusion was arrived at that is irrelevant to the overwhelmingly supported conclusion and convince the scientifically illiterate that any kind of disagreement represents a disagreement over the actual conclusions.

It works on idiots, not on me. Thank you.

Saying that there is a guy in 'our camp' that disagrees with the overwhelmingly supported conclusions is kind of like saying there are 'liberals' on DU who are opposed to Obama's re-election.


There are troll anywhere if you look hard enough. But we don't have to go far in these sorts of threads to find them.

[hack89]

92. No - he is saying that nanothermite has no high explosive properties

so what explains the "explosions" seen at the WTC?

It it basic scientific principles - here is the issue at hand:

“This paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT (22,600 feet per second) can be produced by the nanothermites as described and presented. On page 10, it states, ‘One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.’" What Hightower was asking Gage was: “How can a substance be an explosive and not be able to do pressure/volume work on an object – that is, move an object?”

[The Doctor.]

97. Again, nice wordplay.

Just like they called nano-thermite 'thermite' and then used the substitute word to claim that 'thermite isn't good for demolitions', you're taking something irrelevant and pretending it is relevant.

You see, it doesn't have to have 'high explosive properties' in order to be used in a demolition.

"A Nano-thermite or "super-thermite"[1] is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 Nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and proceed much more quickly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite



But again, your attempt (or this "scientist's&quot to mislead people doesn't work on me.

[hack89]

100. So what was flinging massive girders and beams in the air?

since it wasn't nano-thermite? The kinetic energy of the building perhaps?

And why didn't they simply use conventional shaped charges?

[The Doctor.]

108. Good questions.

I'm sure they could tell us if they wanted to.

Meanwhile, can YOU explain the presence of nano-thermite in the debris?

I'll bet you could earn yourself a bonus if you created a plausible enough explanation. Such a thing would go viral, I'm sure.

[hack89]

114. Well, why can't YOU tell me?

what exactly has the truth movement been doing for 11 years? We keep hearing about all these engineers and scientists that support 9/11 Truth - they don't seem to be pulling their weight.

[The Doctor.]

116. Your game has wound to a finish here....

only to be replayed in another thread.

I'm sure you have more success with others, but your crap doesn't work on me.

I urge anyone reading this to review what the legitimate scientists and engineers have to say about what happened. http://stj911.org/

They've certainly 'pulled their weight' given the obstacles they've had to deal with.

[hack89]

119. At least you have a lifetime hobby

the Kennedy CT sites are still going strong - look to them as they are your future.

[The Doctor.]

121. Explain the presence of nano-thermite in the debris.

[hack89]

123. It was paint chips.

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html

[The Doctor.]

129. You know that's a lie.

I addressed that in my very first post in this thread.

[hack89]

141. Read my link again - you don't appear to understand what it actually said. nt

[The Doctor.]

145. I read what you said. That's all I needed to read.

You're spreading something you know is bullshit. Why is that?

Please: Explain the presence of nano-thermite in the debris.

[gordianot]

14. The unimaginable crime so heinous no one will ever want to admit it happened.

What always impressed me about Nelson Mandella is he was able to forgive the murderers who jailed him. That crime was well known. Some crimes are so terrible conducted in secret they should never be forgiven. Nelson Mandella is a better person than I will ever be.

[Suji to Seoul]

16. Alex Jones would be proud of this, that crackpot

[cpwm17]

20. You're so right there

Some people can't separate fact from fantasy.

Numerous Americans fall for the TV preachers that spit out obvious BS. I, and many others, watch them and observe that it couldn't be more obvious that they are full of nonsense.

"Truther" evangelists remind me of these preachers, with philosophies and thought processes very similar to Creationists: 'I've never seen a monkey turn into a man. Darwinists don't know what they're talking about.'

[SkyDaddy7]

26. I agree!

THE Professional Conspiracy PIMP, Alex Jones, has literally become a multi-millionaire over the past couple of decades spreading ridiculous conspiracies like 911 was an inside job.

I am all about the truth when it comes to everything...However, when it comes to big events like 911 there will NEVER be a satisfactory answer for most of the folks commenting on this article here on DU & NEVER for all the adherents to Conspiracy Theories like those pushed by Alex Jones.

We all know what happened on 911 down to the smallest of details...George Bush's administration was incompetent while being extremely arrogant...Just the idea of his administration pulling off the biggest most disgusting so-called "false flag" operation in history is should be LAUGHABLE on its face but some folks want Bush to be utterly incompetent on all issues except this one where he is so brilliant to have orchestrated the 911 attacks without a single shred of evidence being left for investigators to find despite the THOUSANDS it would have taken to pull off such a action.

This movie will do nothing in terms of changing the fact there is literally no evidence that 911 was anything other than a terrorist attack planned & executed by 19 Islamic terrorist...But it will make the Conspiracy Theorist feel good about believing in stuff with no evidence in support. Kinda sad.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

39. +1000

you said it all

[procopia]

58. evidence

The most obvious evidence that 9/11 was something other than a terrorist attack is the way all three buildings totally collapsed. Look at any photo or video of a building destroyed by fire. A building destroyed by fire doesn't and never has crashed to earth in nearly free fall the way all three buildings did on 9/11. Only a controlled demolition achieves that kind of destruction.

In addition to that, motive is found in PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

[Democratopia]

17. Get ready for all involved to be smeared by Fox News.

[Berlum]

18. Yes

It's about time.

[cpwm17]

21. Great, now we can find out how 9-11 really went down.

I'm sure they'll finally explain it, which is something few "Truthers" have even tried to do before.


TRUTHER EXPLANATION

[Raster]

23. your post: just your opinion or propaganda?

Why is seeking an accurate explanation so scary?

[cpwm17]

25. It's impossible to answer questions asked by the scientifically illiterate

who have an agenda. They disregard obvious facts and make up obvious BS. They're just like Creationists.

[Major Nikon]

59. At least you can somewhat understand it with creationists

As they have an imaginary friend with magical powers they can use to explain literally anything.

[The Doctor.]

76. LMAO!

What amuses me is how utterly ignorant the official version adherents are of the facts surrounding that day. You don't even know what the PNAC is, do you?

What 'obvious facts' do they 'disregard'?

[cpwm17]

86. Visit the Creative Speculation group and you can go into detail

That is a very broad question. There are appropriate rules against discussing this stuff on this forum.

I'm very familiar with PNAC, the Neocons, and the "Truthers."

Creative Speculation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

[The Doctor.]

93. Awesome.

Can you explain the presence of nano-thermite in the debris?

That's not a 'theory' or 'creative speculation'.

Since I've said all I've cared to say in this thread to the known troll and you, the new troll, can you please alert on this post for calling you a troll so 6 random people can learn something about this issue?

[SkyDaddy7]

27. We already know what happened!

I find it quite remarkable that so many of my fellow Liberals agree that Bush was utterly incompetent except when it comes to 911 & then he was this brilliant mastermind who pulled off 911 without leaving one shred of evidence behind. SAD!

Like the other person pointed out it 911 truthers are scientifically illiterate just the same as Young Earth Creationist are...They have to lie & ignore all the facts to support their positions. SAD!

[Raster]

30. no one said anything about bush*, who was nothing more than a moronic figurehead...

...throughout his pResidency. cheney* and others* were the real power.

Any further investigation into 9/11 is more than welcome. If further INDEPENDENT investigation shows the "official" story to be the actual course of events, then nothing lost.

However, what if further, independent investigation does turn out to show differences with the official story and irregularities, don't we all benefit from finding out what may have really happened?

I don't fear the search for truth, no matter where it leads. Why should anyone else?

[thesquanderer]

31. LIHOP does not require competence (n/t)

[Frank Cannon]

33. LIHOP only requires that they don't do jack shit...

To prevent an attack that they know is coming.

And it's well established that that's exactly what they did. I don't know why that's so controversial.

[hack89]

43. Yet CD, holograms, mini-nukes and other woo are the face of 9/11 Truth

if you want to be taken seriously, you need to get a smaller tent and challenge the more "estoteric" theories that go unchallenged in the 9/11 Truth community.

Btw - even LIHOP requires an extensive coverup.

[The Doctor.]

74. No, those are deliberate bullshit painted ON to the 'face' of the skeptics.

If you can't argue with the facts people present, do your best to make them look crazy so no one will listen.

[hack89]

79. Tell you what - go to a Truther site and denounce CD.

See what happens.

Look back at the old 9/11 Forum on DU2 - we spent years arguing over CD, holograms, and mini-nukes. Look at this thread and the comments about nanothermite.

It was not painted on the face of skeptics - some of you truly believe that shit.

[The Doctor.]

91. False equivalence.

You don't realize how transparent your tactics are. Like I've said before, such tactics may work on morons, but they don't work on me.

What you've done here is attempt to equate 'holograms' and 'mini-nukes' to the conventional and well-supported theory of controlled demolition.

If you go on any fact-based 9-11 skeptic site, there will be no talk of holograms, ufo's, or nukes because the actual community of skeptics is scientific and empirical.

But you, and many like you have been fooled by trolls pretending to be "truthers" and spewing enough nonsense to convince the clueless that the skeptics actually believe that garbage.

But you're actually aware of that campaign, aren't you?

[hack89]

96. So a 757 really hit the Pentagon? Good.

you are one of the few truthers to admit that.

[The Doctor.]

102. It was likely a plane.

Probably a 757, but we don't know for certain.

You know why we don't know for certain?

Because all but 3 blurry and obscured frames of video proof was confiscated from every area hotel, gas station, and business surrounding the Pentagon within minutes of the impact.

The most surveilled and protected airspace in the history of mankind and not only did an amatuer pilot manage to pull a perfect maneuver to slam into the ONLY reinforced wall of the Pentagon, but we have no video with which to identify the aircraft he did it with.

Yeah.... that's legitimate.

[hack89]

104. Except for all the 757 parts and all those eye witnesses that saw a 757 at close range you mean. nt

[hack89]

107. Why do you think that air space is highly protected?

the Pentagon sits under the flight path of a major airport - hundreds of planes fly within yards of it every day. It is not a protected bubble where planes are excluded.

And what would they be protecting the building from - there is certainly no military threat.

[The Doctor.]

109. Really?

What would they be protecting the building from?

Oh, I don't know, maybe a hijacked plane or something?

I mean.... really?


Gosh it would be nice if all that video wasn't confiscated. Can you explain why it was confiscated so quickly and never released?

[hack89]

112. Because that has happened so many times since it was built in 1942?

help me along here - give me some details. Explain to me how the Pentagon was defended.

[hack89]

98. Yet the WTC "demolition" was conducted with unconventional materials

using unconventional techniques. In other words, it does not resemble conventional CD at all.

Let me ask a question I have been asking truthers for years. Why can't you present a detailed scenario that shows how CD might have been carried out? Provide some basic parameters like amount and type of explosives, amount of det cord, location of explosives, how much space the explosives would fill, how long would it take to install and wire the explosives.

In 11 years no truther has even attempted it? Why? I thought you knew with absolute certainty that it was CD - why can't you provide some details?

[The Doctor.]

105. Wow, you've had a great deal of practice with the word games.

That, and you're again using the same technique the climate change denialists use: "If you can't tell us exactly what the weather is going to do, then you don't know we're causing climate change, do you?"

Heard it all before.

No, unconventional explosives can be applied to create a 'conventional' demolition because you have to demolish a building a certain way.

So the same structures would be targetted with whatever you're using for the demolition.

I'm amazed that people don't see through all your obvious attempts to mislead.

[hack89]

110. Yet you cannot explain in any detail how it was done

why is that?

Not a single truther has even attempted to explain how the WTC CD was conducted. NOT ONE.

If you can't answer the question "what really happened" then you have nothing.

You have nothing.

[The Doctor.]

113. I wasn't there.

You're trying to get someone to tell you something they don't know. Then, when they say they don't know, just like the climate change denialists do, you claim that proves 'nothing happened'.

Works on morons, and maybe there are a few morons that think you've 'won' because I can't meet a ludicrous burden, but the people with a brain in their heads know the game you're playing. Thankfully, the more you use these propaganda techniques, the more obvious it is that you're a troll.

[hack89]

115. What has the entire 9/11 Truth movement been doing for 11 years?

no one in the movement can answer that question. Which means no one knows what happened.

So stop telling us it was obviously CD.

Come back when you have something substantive to contribute.

[The Doctor.]

120. Repeat a lie often enough, eh?

I think I've seen you use nearly every right-wing tactic in this thread.

What's funny is that the movement has been fighting to get information, and to open investigations, and they've been shut down at nearly every turn. You know that, but you tell the lie anyway.

They've put together all of the information that could be garnered, and it's painted a fairly clear picture of a cover-up. You're using the same ludicrous tactic that the climate change deniers do: Claim that if they can't give you an exact answer to an impossible to answer question, then they 'know nothing'.

You see, Hack, that's the point of a cover-up: Stopping people from getting enough information to prove the actual events. The 'birthers' were given everything they asked for, but since they're actually insane, they still believe something for which no evidence of any kind exists. The 9/11 skeptics are blocked from accessing the information they want, and there is plenty of evidence that something fishy happened.

I've addressed all of your propagandist tricks. So all I'm going to respond with from now on here is: "Explain the presence of nano-thermite in the debris".

[hack89]

122. It was paint chips.

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html

[The Doctor.]

133. Yes, there were ALSO paint chips. Those were tested as well as the nano-thermite.

Explain the presence of nano-thermite in the debris.

[hack89]

140. Read my link again - you don't appear to understand what it actually said. nt

[The Doctor.]

146. I don't care about your link, I asked YOU

to explain the presence of nano-thermite in the debris.

You're trying every trick in the book. It's not working.

[cpwm17]

125. No "Truther" has ever given a PLAUSIBLE explanation on how 9-11 went down

because there is no plausible explanation possible that would be consistent with "Truther" conspiracies.

I, and numerous others, have repeatedly asked "Truthers" for a plausible explanation, and none is ever given.

As hack89 writes "What has the entire 9/11 Truth movement been doing for 11 years?" You've got almost nothing.

[The Doctor.]

128. Your ignorance of the explanations and their plausibility

Does not make them implausible.

In fact, I once asked an OV adherent like yourself what they would have to do in order to make something like 9/11 happen. Lo and behold, all the little details they came up with reflected actual events and actions including, but not limited to: Putting a family member in charge of security for the towers, bottlenecking shoot-down orders, having exercises that same day in order to confound interception, telling close business associates to avoid work in the towers that day, taking out insurance on the towers; double for terrorist attacks, and on and on.

When it dawned on him that nearly everything that he would have to set up actually happened, he got quiet for a long time.

He hasn't talked about it since.

I don't blame him. The implications are frightening.

From now on you'll get one response from me in this thread:

"Explain the presence of nano-thermite in the debris."

[cpwm17]

131. Visit the Creative Speculation group and you can present your evidence

for the presence of nano-thermite in the debris.

Then you can give your plausible explanation for how 9-11 might have gone down. The burden of proof is on you.

[The Doctor.]

132. That burden has been met.

Explain the presence of nano-thermite in the debris.

[cpwm17]

138. You repeatidly assert that nano-thermite was found in the debris.

No matter how many times you write that, it still does not constitute proof.

Visit Creative Speculation and show your proof. You need to show your sources.

The burden of proof is on you. The default position is that you are wrong.

[The Doctor.]

144. Here ya go:

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Nine different scientists tested both the thermitic material and the paint chips that were found in the debris. You can read all of their findings in the .pdf.

Not being intellectually lazy, I read the thing. It's not terribly long as the research was relatively simple.

The OV pushers couldn't have this come out though, so they resorted to a pretty desperate ploy: They claimed that the scientists thought paint chips were nano-thermite and spread that little piece of bullshit far and wide over the internets. You see, they knew that there were two types of people who would fall for that: Those that were too lazy to read the actual research, and those that were so frightened of the implications that they would immediately cling to any silly dismissal of the research.

Many of those people were one in the same.

Which one are you?

Oh, there is of course a third type: Like the teapartiers and wingnuts and creationists, there are people that will reject any science that makes them uncomfortable.

So really, you have three boxes you can check off.


You reallly should have alerted on me a while ago. I'm sure this has been enlightening for someone out there.

[Bradical79]

45. What hasn't been established is the claim that it was intentional negligence

That Bush and company believed this attack would happen and that they intentionally ignored the warnings as part of some larger conspiracy has not been established as fact.

[OldDem2012]

42. Bingo. Besides, it should be obvious to anyone that something like this...

...would have been handled at lower levels by self-professed "patriots" in the Government and the US Military.

Here's a rather revealing PDF document published by several NeoCons in September 2000, one year before the 9/11 attacks. By the way, Cheney's name was on the original document but his name appears to have disappeared from this document:

Rebuilding America's Defenses

If you do a search for the phrase "Pearl Harbor" here's what you'll find:

page 51: "Any serious effort at transformation
must occur within the larger framework of
U.S. national security strategy, military
missions and defense budgets. The United
States cannot simply declare a
“strategic pause” while experimenting
with new technologies and
operational concepts. Nor can it choose to
pursue a transformation strategy that
would decouple American and allied interests.
A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

[LanternWaste]

81. It's a work of fiction, as per the article.

"It's a work of fiction..."

It's a work of fiction, as per the article linked to-- unless of course you believe that the movie Star Wars finally explained what the Force *really* is...

[cpwm17]

90. The line "It's a work of fiction" is not in the article

nor is the word 'fiction.' "A film that will challenge the official version of the events of 9/11" is in the first sentence. It seems that they want to be taken seriously.

[Raster]

22. Long overdue. If nothing else, the sequence of events & actions by bush*, cheney* and rumsfeld*...

...on 9/11 should be thoroughly researched and then spotlighted. Let the American people - and the world - see the players and events in a different light.

What do the anti-Truth people have to fear, eh?

[Bolo Boffin]

24. I invite you to speculate creatively on this in the appropriate forum - Creative Speculation. n/t

[Moosepoop]

28. It isn't speculation, and this is the appropriate forum.

It isn't speculation that the making of this movie is in the news. The OP did not speculate or even comment on the news as reported.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. I refer you to the Terms of Service, and 9/11 Truth is most definitely speculation.

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

There is no exception here for Latest Breaking News. In fact, the statement "those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums" precludes this and other forums from threads like this. There is "some limited discussion" of this topic allowed in Creative Speculation. That is what the group forum is for.

This Terms of Service is something everyone here has agreed to in order to post at Democratic Underground.

[graham4anything]

32. thanks for posting the board rules-indeed the last sentences on anti-semitism is correct

Last edited Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:13 AM - Edit history (1)

I have found someone always veers the thread to blame the Jews
and degrade Mossaaad (all security should be as thorough as theirs, it works!)
and the stereotyping of those groups mentioned are like the stereotypes used against blacks and jews and anyone else Don Rickles used to joke about.


of course the safest safety net is to only vote good people into office

NO BOTH PARTIES ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.THAT WAS DEBUNKED WHEN SCOTUS ALITO AND ROBERTS WERE PICKED.

[Skee]

34. You can't vote.

When it involves unreliable unsecured electronics of unknown design, build, programming, and operation, it's not really voting.

[Bradical79]

49. We know a lot about the voting machines, that's the problem ;-) I see what you're saying though.

There isn't much mystery behind the electronic voting systems. The problem is that too many people don't understand why these are terrible or they just don't care (as long as it's their favored party getting the contract). To most computers are still little more than impenetrable magic boxes that occasionally misbehave.

If the design, build, programming, and operation were all unknown, these electronic systems wouldn't be so easily hacked, lol.

[dixiegrrrrl]

36. The OP is reporting a movie that is being planned.

And no where in the OP is there any discussion of " 9/11 death rays or holograms" which is in the TOS.

Whether the OP about a planned movie with big name actors meets all the criteria for LBN is a job for the forum host to decide.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. 9/11 death rays or holograms cannot even be discussed in the Creative Speculation forum.

9/11 Truth discussion is by the Terms of Service confined to Creative Speculation. That's what the Terms say.

These big-name actors (whose creative work I greatly admire) have long been on the record as supporting 9/11 Truth, all three of them. I'd expect it to get a mention in Creative Speculation. But not Latest Breaking News.

[LanternWaste]

82. I think there is a precise and relevant difference between

"9/11 Truth discussion is by the Terms of Service confined to Creative Speculation. .."

I think there is a precise and relevant difference between discussing a fictional movie that will soon be released and "9/11 Truth discussion"

That relevant difference being one is discussion of a fictional movie about A, while the other is discussion and dialog about A.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. "Important news of national interest only."

Please explain how a fictional movie is that. A: It isn't. Creative Speculation is the place for this discussion.

[Eddie Haskell]

48. If you're one step ahead of the crowd, you're a genius ...

two steps ahead and you're a crackpot.

[Raster]

56. Nice!

[Poll_Blind]

66. That's true in so many different contexts, it's not even funny.

Art (Pablo Picasso), Literature (Kerouac, Joyce), Music (Yoko Ono).

Just kidding about that last one.

PB

[RobinA]

80. D*mn!

I wondered where all that chemtrail talk went. I used to love that nonsense.

[DeeDeeNY]

35. "Truther" is an unfortunate label for something deeply serious

Just because people questioned what happened doesn't make them hard-core conspiracists.
I would like to know why Bush and Cheney fought as hard as they did just to prevent the 9/11 commission from operating. When they finally had no choice and were forced to agree to testify, a reporter asked Bush why they were insisting they would only testify together and not under oath. Bush answered something like "so that we can get to the truth", deliberately ignoring the meaning of the question, which was why did they insist on such conditions. The reporter did follow up and say that is not what he meant, but Bush repeated his ridiculous answer and then conveniently said he could't answer any more questions and that was that. No question he was lying, but no one ever questioned him further about this.
I would challenge anyone to read David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" and still be certain that no further investigation is needed.

[Pachamama]

40. Thank you for this post....i lost friends on 9/11 and feel very strongly that we have not been given

...the full story and details have been either withheld or suppressed or denied.

I think its about time a movie like this is done. I respect Martin Sheen, Ed Aner and Woody Harrelson. I pray the " truth" will be revealed someday. It might not happen in my lifetime, but it will eventually.

I hate that anyone who expresses any intellectual curiousity or asks questions immediately gets labeled and lumped in as a "Truther" or conspiracy theorist. I lost friends. We all lost fellow citizens that day. And we have lost so much more since.

People need to not forget and to keep demanding answers and asking questions...

[hack89]

44. A very appropriate label for those who support CD, no-planes and mini-nukes

there is no woo science stupid enough of some truthers to reject as an explanation of 9/11.

Your problem is your tent is too big.

[green for victory]

65. the opposite of a "Truther"

is a Falser

Imagine that, in 2012 people that seek the truth are ridiculed, mocked and insulted.

DeEvolution

[cpwm17]

99. Do Creationists question how man got here?

Yes.

Is anything the Creationists say worth listening to? No.

Truther = Creationist. The scientifically illiterate should be ignored.

Richard Gage is a transparent liar and crank. Alex Jones is an obvious kook. Dylan Avery (creator of Loose Change) is an uneducated fabricator who has since renounced his MIHOP theories. These scammers are the face of the "truth movement."

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

38. Maybe they can make it a double feature with a birther film

Is that rightwing nut Alex Jones producing?

Woody, Martin and Ed are seriously jumping the shark with this one.

[grantcart]

118. And have a cartoon about climate denial in the middle.

[Bradical79]

46. MIGHT be interesting...

...as long as it doesn't go down the anti-science nutcase path. If evidence is presented over intentional negligence, then it might make some sense. I'm not confident though.

[Eddie Haskell]

47. There needs to be an independent investigation.

Why did bldg. #7 collapse?
What happened to our air intercept system?
Why was the Pentagon defenseless?

Why are we now backing the al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria?

And is it Usama or Osama? http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden

[hack89]

51. By who? Who has the capability, independence and credibility to do it?

as for your questions:

1. WTC 7 collapsed after suffering massive structural damage when parts of the WTC fell on it and burning for hours.

2. There were only 14 aircraft at seven sites in all of America prepared for instant launch for intercept duties. Four aircraft on the east coast were launched but because no one knew exactly where the airliners were (they had turned off their transponders) they could not intercept in time.

3. There are no air defense systems at the Pentagon - it sits in the flight path of a major airport and hundreds of planes flight very close to it every day. Defensive missile systems that can shoot down airliners are big - you can't hide them.

[Eddie Haskell]

52. Bullshit

1. Even NIST acknowleged the damage was not responsible.
2. Turning off transponders does not take an aircraft off radar.
3. Really?

[hack89]

53. I think you need to reread NIST - they proposed a detailed collapse mechanism for WTC 7.

You don't understand the ATC system - it is a cooperative system that uses transponders to track aircraft. The controllers do not even see radar video - turn off the transponders and the controller can't see the plane.

The ATC system is not used to find aircraft - it is predicated on aircraft without transponders flying in different airspace than those that do. Thousands of aircraft without transponders fly in America every day that are invisible to the ATC system.

[Eddie Haskell]

126. The flights were already being tracked on radar before the transponders were turned off.

The only data we don't have is altitude.

I've read the NIST report and as an engineer, I think it's made-to-fit the official scenario ... the only scenario allowed to be considered.

I'd have an independent (not Bush cronies) investigation led by scientists and engineers, not politicians and experts in myth making.

[hack89]

54. You still have not said who should do this investigation.

who is not tainted by 9/11 and would be acceptable to all concerned including the US public?

[Major Nikon]

62. 2. Turning off transponders does not take an aircraft off radar.

No, but it loses them in a mass of radar targets which are also unidentified. It would be like trying to find a needle in a stack of needles. The east coast is the busiest area in the world for air traffic. At any given moment there could be literally hundreds of unidentified aircraft radar targets on a single controller's scope, not to mention flocks of birds and even road traffic which all show up as radar targets.

[CRH]

67. Most of those needles you refer to have tiny signatures,

commercial airliners much larger.

[Major Nikon]

69. Wrong

I am extremely careful about claiming someone is dead wrong, but you're just dead wrong here. You're talking about analog radar systems with analog processing systems which were almost completely phased out by the FAA by 9/11, especially on the east coast. The FAA still has some analog radars in use still today as they did on 9/11, but very few (if any) are or were located on the east coast and even for those they are married to digital systems which convert the old analog data well before any controller ever sees it. Modern air traffic control systems use digital automation systems which paint every single radar target just like every other. A B-52's radar signature will look no different to a controller than a two seat Cessna 150. Even if you want to roll back the clock by 20 years or so when the FAA was commonly using analog systems, those systems painted far more false targets than the digital systems that replaced them, which means you would have an even bigger pile of needles.

[TrogL]

77. Glad somebody here knows what they're talking about

[CRH]

111. Is this to say then our military jets radar, ...

cannot tell the difference between large and small aircraft, or signatures without active transponders? I would venture to say most hostile military aircraft are not using transponders.

Our missiles have had ATR, automatic target recognition, for quite some time.

So are we to believe military aircraft launched to protect the White House or other military targets can't tell the difference between commercial jets and puddle jumpers. Planes with active transponders and possibly others only transmitting a raw return?

[hack89]

117. Military aircraft are absolutely dependent on transponders.

The only way to tell friendly from enemy is a secure IFF code - that is why military aircraft never fly in combat without a working Mode 4 IFF system.

And the size of a radar return is dependent on the aspect of the target. A 747 seen head on can have the same radar return as a Cessna seen side on.

[CRH]

130. What you are saying is ludicrous, ...

Our military planes have long been able to track missiles and planes without transponders. How do you track an enemy who isn't polite enough to turn on his transponder or light up his radar???

What you are saying is ridiculous. You wouldn't last long in combat without ATR capabilities.

[hack89]

139. You can track him. You can't identify him.

you completely missed my point.

[wildbilln864]

57. Fantastic! k&r!

And I see we have the usual suspects coming to defend the OV as they have done for years in the dungeon! No surprise there.....
The truth shall set you free!

[CRH]

60. Show me credible evidence, ...

of planes that hit the pentagon and crashed in Pennsylvania, then I'll not believe MIHOP. Without credible evidence of planes at those locations, hard to believe the whole mess wasn't manufactured.

Even if you could show me that evidence, which you can't, I would still at minimum believe in LIHOP. Too hard to believe in all the failures necessary for four planes to fly unmolested for an hour and forty five minutes. Add to that, Atta's passport flying several blocks only to be found in mass confusion and litter, add to that the anthrax scares that followed with made in america stock, add to that the incredible suppression of information and investigation, of not just situations but crime scenes as well; and you end up with an orchestrated perception diverting attentions from the obvious.

But hey, if you can make people believe in the magic bullet, anything is possible.

[olddad56]

71. hard for me to believe that anyone could watch a video of the buildings collapsing and not

believe that it was a controlled demolition. I know that was my first reaction to seeing it happen on the day that it happened.

[TrogL]

75. The same old logical fallacy

All cows look brown.
My dog looks brown.
Therefore my dog is a cow.

Controlled demolitions fall straight down.
The towers fell straight down.
Therefore the towers were a controlled demolition.

[hack89]

83. Massive weight and gravity doesn't leave falling buildings many options.

collapsing straight down is what you would expect once a part of the structure failed.

[CRH]

127. That was the second thing that caught my attention that day, ...

I once saw a controlled demolition in Hawaii in the 70's when they took down the Biltmore hotel. The immaculate collapse was very impressive, and very complete. The twin towers and seven too, had the same precision down to total completion. Buildings never collapse that way without precision timing of the destruction of the building infrastructure. No amount of fire can create that precision timing, melting all points equally at one time. The cock and bull official story wants us to believe a historical first. Bad enough two crash sites without a plane, or any recognizable parts present.

[cpwm17]

134. The precise timing allows for a neat collapse.

The Twin Towers didn't collapse neatly at all. That's why 'Truthers" now claim they were brought down with massive explosions.

"Truthers" make many contradictory claims.

[CRH]

135. They fell in their footprints, enough said, won't waste my time with you.

[cpwm17]

143. "They fell in their footprints" It only take a few moments on Goggle to discredit that claim.

View a video of the collapse and see if you can still make that ridiculous claim.

Physics works the same on every day of the year – even 9-11. Gravity forces objects straight down towards the center of mass of the Earth.

[cpwm17]

85. There is no evidence of the plane that hit the Pentagon

except all of that Boeing 757 aircraft debris that was found in and around the Pentagon, body parts from most of the aircraft passengers, and the thousands of witnesses from that heavily congested area.

All of this info and pictures can be found in just a few moments on Goggle.

Visit the Creative Speculation group and there are plenty of people that can help you find this info: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

[slackmaster]

95. Self-delete due to emotional reaction to tragic loss that affected my own family

[cpwm17]

103. I assume you misunderstood my post at first. nt

[slackmaster]

106. Yes I did. I read the first sentence and my mind went into full rage mode.

I hate conspiracy theories in general, but none as much as 9/11 denials.

I once met one of my brother's fellow officers who was killed at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. We were on a dock at Pearl Harbor. He was a Lieutenant at the time, serving on the USS Long Beach, one of the original nuclear-powered cruisers.

[slackmaster]

101. My brother is a Naval officer. He knew people who DIED in the attack on the Pentagon.

Shame on you for posting ridiculous conspiracy theory nonsense.

[valerief]

61. Great! nt

[joanbarnes]

68. I pray someday the truth will out, and it will set us all free.

[Arugula Latte]

70. One thing I can't get over:

That perfectly intact hijacker passport just happening to be found among the debris. I doubt we'll ever know exactly what happened or if it was MIHOP or LIHOP or close to the official story, but there were some bizarre things that just don't pass the smell test.

[olddad56]

124. and how long had the goverment had a plan on the books for a false flag atack fo this nature?

only about 40 years. Think Operation Northwoods, google it

[Ashgrey77]

72. The US government under George Bush's administration used 9/11/2001,

as a pretext for world domination and to setup the real surveillance and police state here at home. To many coincidences and to many conflicting interests between the involved parties, like Dick Cheney and Halliburton just as one example, for 9/11 to NOT be a conspiracy. They got their perpetual war through projected fear and need for revenge. Read PNAC's mission statement from 1999 and who signed it, and what they wanted to do globally. 9/11 was the "Pearl Harbor" the think tank was searching so hard for. I guess it's true what TPTB say, the public has a very short memory. And for those of you that would question the capability of our power structure to do such a thing, remember this. This country was founded on the conquest and genocide of the native people who lived here before us. Look how we treat our sick, our poor, our prisoners, and our children. It's hard to confront the things done in the name of "progress", because the "progress" really only benefits the few. And as we take a deeper look at the things we've allowed the few to do in our name and with our blessing for that progress it gets really hard to criticize such things because at the root of it, we are just as responsible for it as they are. So of course the whole concept is laughed at. The guilt associated with investigating and accepting the truth when it's discovered is to much for most people when daily survival and their own sanity is at stake as well.

[hughee99]

87. The fact that they used 9/11 as a pretense to do all the shit they were planning to do anyway

isn't evidence that they were involved in it, just that they are shameless opportunists.

[slackmaster]

94. Rec because I expect the movie to be unintentionally hilarious

The lead character from Zombieland a.k.a. Woody from Cheers, alongside President Bartlet from The West Wing and Lou Grant from The Mary Tyler Moore Show, trying to act serious together to reveal some heinous conspiracy by a government lead by a guy who couldn't even manage a baseball team.

What could possibly go right?

[Robb]

136. Spoiler: they're gonna fuck it up with aliens.

Spoiler #2: they're all gonna look like Transformers.

[slackmaster]

142. ...And they wake up at the same time to a clock radio playing "I've Got You Babe" repeatedly

[JesseJonesNYC]

137. Good and bad

As long as they act and stay away from input this could be good

[OKNancy]

147. Sorry, Locking this thread

After many alerts and much discussion in the host forum about this thread, it is our consensus opinion that this really doesn't meet the LBN Statement of Purpose. It's an announcement about a movie which no matter the subject is really not an important news story of national interest. This doesn't mean it can't be discussed on many other appropriate forums here at DU.

Statement of Purpose for LBN

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only.
No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours.
Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1014