Gumshoe News

by Dalia Mae

I had no idea of the magnitude of the ‘disinformation game’. ‘Disinfobots’ or ‘defenders’ lure people via ‘honey pots’ of pseudo evidence into endless argument – with the intent to maliciously foul the 9-11 debate. It was only when I started this site did I see the patterns, and was thankfully warned by others more experienced than myself.

But, the time for debating is long past. The only issue left is to discuss is the make up of the official and transparent Inquiries/ Congressional hearings/ Royal Commissions etc; when they should start, and how they could be financed.

I have had a few ‘defenders’ of the 9-11 official story targeting this site for some time. Three, I believe, are professionals in the construction industry, but seem more expert at cluttering the threads with endless inane short comments that deflect discussion away from the core issue. And they are often so quick with research that I believe they must be working off a ‘9-11 Disinfo-Manual’.

About a week ago I challenged them to write a thesis – their version of the 9-11 building collapses – and if it was done with conviction, I’d publish it. Two of them – El Kammo and XingFu – emailed me directly (only hours apart) and suggested that they’d be up for a (Skype) interview (with conditions). I had not ever suggested that, and this could not be a coincidence. They must be in contact (along with Johnyboy) or even work in the same office (and that is fine if they are), and now they seem to have ramped up their assault on this site. That’s in a way a compliment.

Though we have now communicated cordially by email to discuss a possible Skype interview, Mary Maxwell has warned me that they have dark intentions of damaging this site – and could be even paid or supported to do so. Their recent attacks have become more personal – attacking Richard Gage (and his salary) and Niels Harrit (for being a ‘crackpot’). I suspect we have “defenders” with malicious intent, and it seems debate is futile.

These type of ‘defenders‘ will continually argue against further inquiry – but this makes an investigation of Building 7 all the more important. It reminds me of the decades of deflection and defending of the church around crimes of pedophilia.

Let me be upfront. I believed in the official story until Building 7 was brought to my attention. After my own deductions, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that Building 7 was not brought down by fire. And this opened the burrow. (note emphasis)

Building 7 – The Tipping Point

The collapse of Building 7 is exceptionally profound. It is so plain and simple. Were explosives used? If so, society is in trouble.

So whenever Building 7 is questioned, this initiates social uncertainty.

I want to be pragmatic. Let me take you back to my meeting with Professor Jonathan Barnett (a fire expert that contributed to the FEMA and NIST reports). I met Barnett in October 2014, and we discussed 9-11 (mainly B7) for an hour and a half. In the end I could find no logic in the debate. I questioned his/NIST’s conclusion that Building 7 came down in a symmetrical collapse as a result of fire damage to column 79. Surely the collapse would then demonstrate some lateral asymmetry?



Section the computer modelling

I paraphrase a very long discussion: “Did you look for explosives?” Barnett, “There was no evidence of explosives” “But it looks like a demolition” “There were no signs of a demolition” “But it just collapses like (that)” “It was brought down by column 79 failing – consistent with fire” “But the NIST computer modelling doesn’t match the real collapse” “We were the best minds in the country.” “But why didn’t you look for explosives?” “We were at the site – there was no indications that it was brought down by explosives.” “But did you look?” “We didn’t need to….”

Around and around we went.

I quote an extract from the audio of Barnett (in video below):

“I could argue that I have a theory that also matches the evidence and is predicted by computer modelling …. Why did the computer model predict what occurred?… So you don’t want to believe the computer model? I can just tell I was sitting there with twenty of the nations best engineers and we were all comfortable with our hypothesis… there was a white board with all the hypotheses and we all agreed on this …. I can just tell you the facts and the science predict what occurred…. Well someone else could come along and say an explosion could have done it also. Well maybe except I have no evidence… and prove it wasn’t Martians”.

I thus wrote in an article later: “I concluded that the investigating teams – these extraordinary experts – had gone through some kind of mind or thought manipulation.”

The Opposite of Obvious

Barnett said to me – “There was no need to look for explosives”. But–

If it looks like a perfect demolition, why would you not investigate the obvious.

As I have written in a comment before:

There is a corpse. There are bullet holes in the corpse but only a bloody knife at the scene. The neighbour owns the knife, thus – is the neighbour the murderer? No, not necessarily – you have to find the gun (the murder weapon), discover whose blood is on the knife, and then work out who pulled the trigger.

Why are the defenders so against further inquiry? To quote Christopher Brooks in a comment:

“The comm-entities (defenders) do a service in demonstrating a very different moral “ruler” than I hold true because they have expressed satisfaction with the integrity of the 911 Commission investigation which was very clearly designed and staffed to limit accountability and keep selected information hidden from essential scrutiny.”

There is one possibility that is rarely discussed (that fits with Larry Silverstein’s “pull”):

MAYBE the CIA had pre-planted explosives in the building many years before – not because of 9-11 – but because of national security in the event of a war; that under certain circumstances this important building could be pulled to stop another nation getting access to CIA files. And maybe this was then activated on the day. This would be logical, even believable – but highly improbable. And why the cover-up?

But back to evidence, proof, debate and inquiry. I believe this is what the debate should be about.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The collapse by fire is essentially based on one unseen action/failure within the building, this purportedly backed by a computer modelling (as seen in this 13 second video). The defenders claim the building had a most unusual design flaw.

Reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases – thus let us use a similar ‘rule’. Can it be determined ‘Beyond all Reasonable Doubt’ that fire WAS the cause of Building 7 to collapse? Absolutely not.

Is there another logical explanation that can be derived from the facts? Yes, there is another (highly) possible explanation:

It looks like a perfect demolition – identical to hundreds of other buildings that have been brought down by explosives.

No other steel high rise building has collapsed in a similar fashion as a result of fire.

For several floors, the building is in free fall – thus without resistance.

The NIST computer modelling does not replicate the real collapse (on video).

There was evidence of molten metal (for weeks) afterwards.

A scientific study suggests thermitic material in the dust (which may or may not belong to B7).

Witnesses heard a countdown and heard ‘booms’.

The BBC announced the collapse 20 minutes before.

The Leaseholder said ‘pull’ with regard to the building (He claimed later his reference was to ‘evacuation’ – not demolition).

Barry Jennings reported that he was in an explosion on the stairs when trying to evacuate.

There were fires but only a small percentage of the building had been affected.

Thousands of professionals and experts (in architecture, engineering, mathematics etc.) believe it was demolished by ‘explosives’.

(in architecture, engineering, mathematics etc.) believe it was demolished by ‘explosives’. It is obvious that a finding ’caused by explosives’ would have been extremely challenging to present to superiors, and

There are people and organisations trying to suppress Building 7 information and evidence.

BEFORE there is a transparent investigation, surely it is NOT necessary to prove 100% that explosives were the cause. At least a dozen of the facts above prove that there is more than ‘Reasonable Doubt’ that fire was the cause. Regardless whether you call it reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence or the Legal burden of proof, one of these points above puts ‘doubt’ on the original Building 7 official hypothesis. But with a dozen points of fact, this places the NIST (‘fire as causation’) finding into serious question.

Thus–

End the Futile Debates

I ask myself – is it not futile to debate the likes of JohnyBoy, El Kammo and XingFu (allegedly construction experts themselves). Surely, they are not intertersted in balance – and if they are prepared to trash a professor of chemistry (of 40 years) without analysis of his science – then they will trash anyone.

Gumshoenews does not have to prove how the building exactly collapsed. The weight of the facts is clearly and squarely AGAINST the official story – and no matter how confusing or how vitriol the debate, that can never change.

To me it is really simple. Based on the overwhelming balance of the facts before us, anyone with integrity would support an OPEN TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION that is not controlled by the very people/organisation that might be implicated.

And if you are against this, then you should come under suspicion.

Gumshoe News