Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Two great resources (5 posts)

  1. christs4sale
    Administrator

    For purchasing rare and OOP history books:

    The Last Hurrah Bookshop in Williamsport, PA.

    Go to: www.lasthurrahbookshop.com

    Proprietor Andrew Winiarczyk is very helpful. The website is out of date. If you would like a rare book that you do not see on the website, give Andy a call at 570-321-1150. An excellent resource for materials on hidden history, assassinations, etc.

    If you like audio lectures:

    Spitfirelist.com

    This is Dave Emory's audio archive. It has almost all of his lectures going back to the early eighties.

    Check out these pages:

    I am aware of many of the issues that people here, including myself, have with Dave Emory. In the last several years, he almost sounds like he could be a member of the Likud Party at times. Listen to his lecture on the Destabilization of the Clinton Administration, one of my favorites, and you can hear how much he has changed if you listen to Emory regularly. My guess is that everyone here would find these archives very useful.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  2. Victronix
    Member

    Looking at his stuff against demolition is pretty enlightening. He posts the claims from Protec with zero information from those proposing demolition except for the claims that Protec had said they made. Amazing to literally have one side presenting the claims of the other side . . . with no input whatsoever from the other side.

    FTR #599 Update on September 11 and Related Matters (Control This!) Posted June 19, 2007 by FTR, in Category: For The Record Recorded June 3, 2007 In this broadcast, Mr. Emory reads a paper written by industry professionals expert in the field of controlled demolition. Evaluating principal assertions of the advocates of the “controlled demolition” theory about the collapse of World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 on 9/11/2001, they reject them on empirical scientific grounds. . . . the document negates the various aspects of the “controlled demolition” disinformation that has (to an extent) served to eclipse the very real, sinister and operational forces that launched the attacks. http://spitfirelist.com/?p=231

    Indeed, the "disinformation" coming from architects, engineers, physicists, chemists, etc. is trumped by the demolition guys . . .

    ASSERTION#5: ‘An explosive other than conventional dynamite or RDX was used . . . a non-detonating compound such as thermite (aka thermate), which gets very hot upon initiation and can basically ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by photographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the temperature and duration of underground fires, and comments made by rescue workers. PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evidence to support this claim;

    What Steve & Kevin's new paper will show is that nanothermite, or superthermite, is found via multiple types of analyses of the dust. Protec wouldn't know what that is, much less what it does, nor would they have the tools to detect it even if they knew how.

    Amazing.

    Here's part of a response to Blanchard:

    Implying All Demolitions Must Be Engineered the Same Way

    Blanchard's primary mislead is to imply that any controlled demolition would have to be engineered in the same fashion that he has witnessed in commercial demolitions. He never explicitly acknowledges this, but he repeatedly reinforces it, exploiting people's tendency to defer to experts.

    In fact, it is quite easy to destroy structures when constraints of economy and safety are eliminated: blowing things up is much easier than imploding them. But Blanchard would have you believe, for example, that it is impossible to destroy a building's columns without the labor-intensive procedure of "pre-burning." I doubt that members of combat demolition units bother with such procedures when they blow up buildings.

    The key tenet of Blanchard's denial of WTC controlled demolition is thus the unacknowledged assumption that all demolitions have to be engineered in the same way as those designed to implode buildings with minimal collateral damage. His reliance on a stealth assumption is reminiscent of the NIST Report, which hides its failure to explain the total collapses of the Twin Towers behind the idea that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse" -- an assumption that runs counter to all experience and defies experimental verification. http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/inde...

    Posted 15 years ago #
  3. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Thanks Victronix. This is informative. I have mostly paid attention to how he covers issues on a more macro level. Listen to him cover certain issues, particularly his lectures on the 2000 election or the compromising of the Clinton Administration and then listen to his last several broadcasts. It is almost as if you could listen to his current show and Ralph Schoenmann and the two balance each other out.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  4. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Implying All Demolitions Must Be Engineered the Same Way

    Blanchard's primary mislead is to imply that any controlled demolition would have to be engineered in the same fashion that he has witnessed in commercial demolitions. He never explicitly acknowledges this, but he repeatedly reinforces it, exploiting people's tendency to defer to experts.

    In fact, it is quite easy to destroy structures when constraints of economy and safety are eliminated: blowing things up is much easier than imploding them. But Blanchard would have you believe, for example, that it is impossible to destroy a building's columns without the labor-intensive procedure of "pre-burning." I doubt that members of combat demolition units bother with such procedures when they blow up buildings.

    Thank you. This is one of the most annoyingly irrelevant points routinely made by the debunker squad. As though you couldn't blow shit up unless you first cleared a perimeter and gutted the walls. Uh huh.

    I also had an enlightening debate once about the meaning of footprint as it relates to WTC 7. Apparently a bit of the rubble scraping up against the side of the Verizon building (across a very narrow street) signifies a complete failure as a demolition and proves the building tipped as it fell.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  5. emanuel
    Member

    There's another point here that makes this argument even more moot, and that is that standard, commercial demolitions conducted over the last few decades by Controlled Demolition Inc., come in all variety of styles, some of which in fact do resemble the WTC collapse. I saw a documentary on the company where they showed numerous videos of their public demolitions, including stadiums, bridges and other non-conventional structures. There was no simple, one-size-fits-all method. Even some of the normal-looking buildings blew up in ways different from the supposed "classic" style. I wish I could find this documentary online. I even forgot what show it was on. Science channel of some sort I would imagine.

    Emanuel

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.