top
International
International
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Painful Deceptions

by Rick Wilson (fgwilson [at] sbcglobal.net)
Eric Hufschmid provides expert analysis of the suspicious collapses of World Trade Center towers and other aspects of 9/11 in this 40-minute segment of his video documentary.
Copy the code below to embed this movie into a web page:
If you have not yet seen Eric Hufschmid's "Painful Deceptions," you are not yet awake, my friends. See the 40-minute segment here on Indymedia for crucial analysis of the suspicious collapses/explosions on 9/11.
by Rick Wilson (fgwilson [at] sbcglobal.net)

PainfulDeceptionsTitleImage.PNG"

by Rick Wilson (fgwilson [at] sbcglobal.net)
Paste the following code to your web editor and create a banner linking your visitors to the "Painful Deceptions" video:

"<P><A HREF="http://www.prisonplanet.com/painful_deceptions_excerpt.wmv" TARGET="_blank">
<IMG SRC="http://www.erichufschmid.net/PainfulDeceptionsTitleImage.PNG" WIDTH="468" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="BOTTOM"
</P>"
by Informed
I just got a hold of Painful Deceptions.
Watched it with an open yet critical mind.
And while I have dealt with people with this view before, they didn’t have your “ammunition” as it were.

So I’d like to, if you’d be interested in indulging me, ask a few questions.
I’m sure you deal with it all the time.
But I’d greatly appreciate you humoring me.

My questions and observations are obvious.

1) your video opens with the statement “do you still believe flight 77 hit the pentagon?”.

In short, yes…. Yes I do. Based of course on the fact there is a whole lot of plane wreckage and eye witness accounts of said plane hitting said building.
Why was the video opened in this manner?
I understand you attempted to explain the difference between a fireball and an explosion, but what I don’t understand is what’s being implied.
Are you implying there was no plane, and it was a planned explosion? Or are you implying that the plane itself was laden with explosives which resulted in the images we have of the pentagon?
The beginning of the video was therefore very confusing. I waited the whole 45+ minutes for your answer as to flight 77 hitting the pentagon and it wasn’t answered.

But that’s incidental.
Before I begin I probably should tell you that few things irk me like a conspiracy theorist.
We’re being visited by UFO’s, we didn’t land on the moon, we have secret files on all Americans… yadda yadda.
Each ideal is so easily dismissed because of it’s absurdity that it’s a detriment to the weak minded of American people to even discuss them.
And while usually, my education and understandings allow me to pity a conspiracy theorist grasping at imagined straws, your video intrigued me.
Perhaps because it expressed itself with possible fact, and not make believe theories.
But regardless, it’s worth having a discussion about.

I stated the above so you know where I stand.
I’m NOT a potential convert. What I am, is someone who is willing, and able, to adjust his world view, based on irrefutable fact.

By the way Tim McVeigh “accused” of blowing up?
I think it was a tad more then “accused”. I’d go with “undeniably proven to have”, in place of the word accused.
But again… incidental to the core of the email.
Which, yes, I’m getting to.

2) My obvious problem with people claiming that the US government brought down our own towers is of course timing.
Which, I noticed was not discussed in the video. In fact, it’s not discussed in ANY theory, I have ever seen on this matter, anywhere, ever.
To me it’s similar to how a moon landing conspiracy theorist will point out 5,000 “facts”, while never addressing the fact we have 800 lbs of moon rocks which have been independently verified by no less then 100 science agencies around the world for upwards of 30 years.
Incredible claims, need of course, incredible proof.
To state the towers came down by our own hand (even focusing on building 7) requires of course, incredible proof.

I’m also going to call on Mr. Occam.
William Occam (or more appropriately, William of Occam), gave us the statement, “One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything” This of course became the ground work for the PRINCIPLE OF PARSIMONY OR PRINCIPLE OF SIMPLICITY.
Which states: “A criterion for deciding among scientific theories or explanations. One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic”
This is of course a profoundly important realization because it underlies all scientific modeling and theory building.

So therefore, since the observable proof is what it is regarding the towers, and the events of September 11th, I unfortunately have to place the burden of proof on those making wild accusations.
For no other reason, then the simple path is usually the correct path.
But by nature, a conspiracy theorist chooses an explanation that requires by and large a huge leap of faith (not to mention logic).
So again…. Incredible claims, require incredible proof.

So I have to come back to Timing.
As with the moon rocks, Timing, in the case of the towers on Sept 11th is everything.
I visited the web site of Controlled Demolition Inc (http://www.controlled-demolition.com), and discovered answers to my “timing” conundrum.
Absolutely no where on their web site was I able to find this DREXS “method” of destroying buildings into bite sized pieces.
You’d think such a patented technology that revolutionized the industry of destruction would be the most prominent thing on their site.
But I went one step further, I actually called the company.
I spoke with the International Headquarters and learned some rather surprising things about the DREXS system.
First of all, the DREXS system has not, ever, been used to take down ANY building.
It was a system designed to take down Off-Shore oil rigs.
When they made the quote from their British division that stated:
”Our DREXS systems…. Segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment”. They were NOT referring to tractor trailers.
They were referring to massive construction cranes (capable of lifting hundreds of tons), as well as barrages at sea.
You INTERRPRETED their statement to match YOUR conception model.
Instead, what you should have done is report the information accurately instead of coming up with supposed facts, and taking information out of context to attempt to scare people and instill mistrust and fear in the US Government. Which is of course similar, in many ways, to the tactics of a terrorist.
You’re free to interpret that last line as you see fit.

I also spoke at length to about other projects performed by Controlled Demolition Inc.
These projects included the Seattle Kingdome, J.L. Hudson Department Building, and the Villa Panamericana & Las Orguideas building.
The most obvious question I had…. “How long does it take to plan, and set up a demolition?”
Their answer? 4 to 6 months.\
My next question of course “from the time you decide to place explosives to the time the building falls, how much time is needed?”
And now his answer: Upwards of 8 weeks or more.

Why is this profoundly important?
Because what you have suggested in your video, is that a demolition crew, managed to line the 7 buildings of the twin towers with explosives, and despite the fact in excess of 10,000 people work there, no one managed to notice that this was occurring.
No one managed to notice massive drills coming in. And huge holes being drilled in support columns to place explosives.
Not to mention the miles of wire that are run to link all the explosions to insure they detonate in sequence.
I’m going to repeat that for emphasis.
You’re asking me to believe, that a demolition company, managed to work for in excess of 8 weeks, placing explosives and it went completely, and utterly undetected. Even by the maintenance crews of the buildings who are in all the nooks and crannies your average office worker may not see.

Lets add a human element shall we?
You’re asking me to believe, from your video, that while watching school children come and go, fathers, and mothers come and go, these heartless, cold, completely unfeeling human beings at the CDI spend more then 8 weeks, placing explosives throughout the various twin tower buildings, knowing they would be responsible for the killing of thousands of people.

I’d like to at this time quote again, Mr. Occam.
“One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything”.

I’m sorry, but I simply don’t see enough time.
While I CAN NOT explain this 15 million dollar expenditure on building 7 by the city of New York to make it a command center (it’s also something I did not take the time to confirm, so I’m taking you at face value on this one fact at least), I AM saying that *all* the evidence must be irrefutable for it to be true.
While yes, I will gladly, and willingly concur that such an expenditure not long before the attacks took place is suspect, and perhaps unexplainable What I can tell you that the CDI would need, weeks and weeks to orchestrate this disaster.
Mind you, using a system, that simply doesn’t exist for buildings.

Much like the moon landing where all I have to do is point a telescope to the surface and see all the neat NASA toys on the surface, or go to a museum and stare at moon rocks, that is all that is needed to provide proof of concept.
Where as a conspiracy theorist only have engine sounds, background observations, and video of devices performing badly on earth a few months before the 1969 launch.
As you can see, the first two proof positive facts casually, and irrefutably dismiss any theorists beliefs.
The towers disaster is no different. I’m staring at a time table, and a supposed method of destroying a building that doesn’t exist.

At video minute marker 34.45 you state (and I quote):
“Anybody in the path of this flying debris would have been killed. The thousands of gallons of jet fuel that sprayed into this area and then caught on fire would certainly kill a lot of people also.
The only way anyone would have survived this airplane crash was if the flying debris and the fires did not reach them.”

Sir, at this time you are making a PERSONAL ASSUMPTION.
You are, at THIS moment, no longer stating fact. You are stating belief.
People survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic weapons.
Yet you express shock that someone survived the attack on the Pentagon.
People survive plane crashes from incredible heights.
Yet you express shock that someone survived the attack on the Pentagon.
People survive sky diving accidents where parachutes don’t open.
Yet you express shock that someone survived the attack on the Pentagon.

Humanity’s remarkable resilience to apparent death should, at this point in life, not be a shock to anyone.

But more importantly, you are now interjecting a personal theory belief into the video. That is as open to interpretation as a religious belief.
You also, by your own admission state that you can not see into the building, and the reflective glass makes it difficult to ascertain any more lives inside.
You suggested that there could be dozens of lives, thus giving credence to your theory there was very little fuel and debris moving about.
I make then the devil’s advocate counter suggestion that states: No, it was just those two people, the woman and the man. That other woman that as you say appears to be looking over the edge. I state that she is already dead. And those two you see are the only two that survived BECAUSE of all the debris and fuel.
Now, there is nothing but wild speculation to fuel MY statement. Just as equally, there is nothing but wild speculation to fuel yours.

Very unfortunately, while the beginning of your video shows great promise because it at first seemed to center on fact. It quickly degraded into speculation and assumption.
Worse, assumption that was never based on fact.

You point out small fires, but again, because of the reflective nature of the building’s glass no one, from any angle, from any picture or footage, can be sure, to any degree of certainty of what is happening “behind the scenes” as it were. No one can say what fires are slowly weakening the structures of the various buildings.

You are also quick to point out the fireplace. The problem with this is that fireplace grates are iron. Not galvanized steel. And iron performs differently then galvanized steel. Iron fireplace works also do not support thousands of tons of metal as a building frame does.
So while I agree with you that the twin towers were extremely well built.
I can also see that the loss of supports that were immediately destroyed when the planes hit, coupled with both flash, and slow burning fires over the course of hours, could easily result in a structural weakness that results in their destruction.
This of course has been confirmed by independent engineers days and weeks after the disaster. Where as no accredited engineer, anywhere in the world, has picked up on your theories.

So while yes. I WILL concur, that there are some pretty impressive, and critical coincidences occurring on Sept 11th. I can not realize the possibility that it was a choreographed event, because these wild accusations are easily explainable events, or, in the case of this DREXS theory, easily proven to be false.

Comments?

by spellcaster (spellcaster [at] linuxmail.org)
Hi, I have a comment;

After watching Loose_Change\ [divx-rip]\ [letsroll911.net].avi I beg to differ.

Just my 0.02 Eurocents
by Someone who so both videos
indestructiblewoman.jpg
This commentary is really weird:
"whole lot of plane wreckage and eye witness accounts of said plane hitting said building".

I'd love to see the "whole lot of plane wreckage", because all I have seen was a very small engine belonging to an airforce fighter. (See 'Loose Change', to get more details.)

Also about your comments of the woman on the twin tower . Only a person living in self-denial or somebody working for the CIA would try to make us believe that this woman or anyone else, could survive a fire of 1800 Farenheit degrees.
(See a picture of the woman on this page: " http://www.painfuldeceptions.com/images/IndestructibleWoman.jpg ".
Indestructible Woman

I really believe your comment is absolutelly 'idiotic', but don't take it personal. Inteligent people some times make silly comments. ( I really mean your comment is idiotic. NOT you. You actually seem to be a person with more education than my own. -Maybe somebody working for the government, on this outregeous cover-up !?).


by Proud Primate (jscarp [at] gwi.net)
I have just seen the 70 min. video, and in shock gave copies to several friends. As I continued to dig, I came upon the Wikipedia page that treats various "conspiracy theories", as they wound up being called (what alternative?).

This led me to the piece in Popular Mechanics 9/11: Debunking The Myths that makes the following claim:
FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

The stark contrast between the statement in the video of — what was it, 67? — successful scrambles to intercept aircraft that were out of proper headings within some number of years, no more than a decade, and the claim made in PM is too large to leave unaddressed.

Is there any way to get Eric Hufschmid to comment on this unambiguous conflict of claims?

More importantly, is there any way to find out for sure how many such events there really have been?

Thanks for providing this forum — JSC
by Proud Primate (jscarp [at] gwi.net)
Not able to get past the horror of having to eat my words, or rather those on the disks I handed out, I kept digging.  Look what I found:

Military now notified immediately of unusual air traffic events

This is an AP release from 08-12-2002, free at the above link, but still available from AP for $1.50.

It includes this:
At a NORAD operations center in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs, Colo., a noncommissioned officer listens to conversations on the FAA network from all over the United States, said Maj. Douglas Martin, NORAD spokesman.

"If he hears anything that indicates difficulty in the skies, we begin the staff work to scramble," Martin said. Before Sept. 11, the FAA had to telephone NORAD about any possible hijackings.

From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.


That is a pretty good comeback to the likes of Popular Mechanics, as much a collaborator as ex-NFL stars selling motor-oil to the NASCAR dads, it's safe to say.  "Here's a great outlet for our propaganda", thinks Karl Rove.  "The Popular Mechanics crowd will be eager to know that Bush World is still on track."
by Proud Primate (jscarp [at] gwi.net)
I was afraid not to spend the $1.50, and get hold of the authentic Associated Press document. It turned out to be $3.95, but I had to have it. What if my boss (to whom I gave the CD of Painful Deceptions had a copy of PM from March?

Sure enough, it's identical to the free copy I linked you to two comments above. Another interesting thing: the PM article, on page 3, addresses three conspiracy claims. In the first, this quote appears:
"They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD.
This is the man who is quoted in the AP article that affirms the 67 scrambles in the year prior to 9-11.

The third claim on that page is the one that says,
In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.
Notably, this is not a quote. Those are merely the words of the author of the piece.

I leave you with the Mega-Marvelous source page that led me to my great chunk of what I consider bullet-proof evidence against PM's corporate salvo. It is from OILEMPIRE.US  The particular resource is Popular Mechanics focuses on bogus 9/11 claims to discredit real evidence of complicity. My hat's off to these stalwarts who produced it, and I urge you all to take the time to read large portions of it (it is extensive and comprehensive).
by v1
Here's a quick link to info on DREXS technology:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=13
I found it in one click.

And, to address comments about survivors...
The point is, if you were trapped in the building, your main concern would have been to avoid the smoke, not necessarily the heat.
Consider the words of the firefighter who made it to the damaged levels. (If you are informed, you have surely heard this recording) He stated that several people near the impact area survived AND that the resulting pockets of fire could be controlled. With this basic information in mind, it's easy to question the official explanation of how the towers collapsed. There was not enough heat to melt or weaken the steel which gave support to the towers.

I hope you find this information helpful.
by frank nada
you can see nasa equipment on the moon from here with a telescope?!

wow. you will show me this effect.

not that it's not there or anything, just, it's pretty far, and those landers are pretty small.

there's a story out there that the building's upper half were powered down and closed for a weekend prior to the event, to upgrade the cabling. now why would management upgrade cables if they were just planning to knock it down right away?
of course the conspiracy theory would say the power down was used to install cables which were full of explosive, or something.
by fuckin A!
I am completely open to the idea that 9-11 was a domestic psy-op, and that the whole 'conspiracy theory' language of dismissal is itself Orwellian (Michael Parenti's view also, and he's no twit), but the stuff you 9-11 "Truth" dorks are bringing up here is worthless garbage. You've bought into a lot of heavily circulated bullshit that only makes you look like total fools. If there's a government operation out there working against you, circulating shit like this would be their most devastating tactic. Stop swallowing shit uncritically just because it supports your theory! There's lots of VERY SOLID non-conjectural reasons to question the official story, and this stuff you're swallowing is at the very least wild conjecture, at worst calculated disinformation.

For the good strong solid stuff, go here:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
and DONATE to these people, or else this site will very soon disappear forever. For 9-11 Truth crowd it is an invaluable resource.

Bullshit conjectures:
- very good stuff has been written about the 'missile into the Pentagon' theory being absolute shit. You spout this to anyone who isn't already convinced of your viewpoint, they're going to roll their eyes, dismiss you as a nut, and never listen to you on this subject again

- same goes for the planes were really missiles horseshit vis the twin towers. I am mortified by clods that really believe this

- likewise for the 'controlled demolition' theory for the twin towers. This hypothesis is so overcomplicated, untenable, and UNECESSARY that it's embarassing to see anyone believe this.

- the "magic woman" photo above is a really good example of what I'm talking about. The "close up" DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE THE OBJECT IN THE PICTURE!!!! The orange jacket is missing. In the original pic the object looks like twisted metal that just happens to suggest legs. Photos are SO easy to doctor now. If you people had a tenth of the sense you think you do you'd notice how faked up this picture is and how useful this sort of "proof" is for those who would make you look like assholes

It's bullshit like this that made Michael Ruppert finally distance himself from the 9-11 truth movement he effectively started. He was the real deal. Anything that catches on like this though gets flooded with idiots and clogged with PR-engineered disinformation. If you don't have a strong command of basic science, technical subjects, intellectual discipline, and the TRUE spirit of skeptical thinking for God's sake shut the fuck up!!
by Try a logical approach.......
By too many holes I refer to the governments account of the truth a and the truth portrayed by Pianful Decepetion. It is obvious that the government is not telling the whole story and has plenty to hide. The sheer amount of huge mistakes, oversights, mis-represented facts and total disregard for established protocols for each situation involving 911 alone clearly show something is amiss. There are too many to list so I won't bother, plus it is not the point of my reply. If you want a better explaination, Dr. Ray Griffin has gave a speach at the University of Wisconsin and has written a book concerning where the govt. went wrong. If the URL doesn't work do a Google search, its free and worth watching. http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html My issue is that Eric Hufschmid did a bad job at trying to get to the truth. There is no logical ordrer to how the facts and events are presented. The documentary skips around from one location to another, one point to another without finishing each topic before moving on. A 5th grader could do a better editing job. Another big mistake is he presents his own opinions to fill the holes where the facts are not there, similar to Michael Moore's 911 movie. It may make the story more dramatic but loses it's credibility instantly. If you are going to make a documentary stick to facts that can be proven and then back them up with proof; film, physical, plenty of eyewitness accounts or enough experts to give it credibility. Painfull Deception is seroiusly lacking in this area. There should be a more expert testimonials and references as to where to get the facts to his statements. I don't want to sound like the documentary is complete crap and untrue. There are many valid points and i believe many of them to be true, just a bad job at presenting them.
by more informed. less terrified
I'm grateful to you for at least having the honesty up front to admit you loathe "conspiracy theorists."

Tell me, what do you think of the Watergate CONSPIRACY, or the 50-some proven CIA CONSPIRACIES to topple and subjugate foreign governments. How about that last party's CONSPIRACY to violate the US constitution by funding the Contra terrorist army via 1) covert arms deals with Iran, then 2) partnership with Colombian and Cuban drug kingpins shipping massive quantities of Cocaine into the US (as proven by Gary Webb and ADMITTED TO byt the CIA itself). This last is treason of the highest order. Why didn't they all hang for this? Could this be a symptom of yet another CONSPIRACY? Egads!!

As Michael Parenti says, the propaganda that there are no conspiracies is the biggest conspiracy of all

What William of Occam really said is that YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT since you weren't an eye-witness to what actually happened on those planes, so therefore you're just accepting as gospel the say-so of eminently untrustworthy parties (the Bush administration; corporate-controlled major media) Tell me, didn't these same parties railroad and brainwash the American people into supporting the totally criminal invasion of a foreign country? Of course, you don't believe this either, do you? You have kids, a house, a pretty sweet job... In short too much invested in "the system" to understand what a complacent mush-brained asshole you really are.

Your entire post consists of cherry-picking the most ludicrous garbage out of both 9-11 conjecture and older junk and using this to reject the entire premise that this government might be criminally insane. I believe this is called the 'straw man' method. What are you so afraid of?

This government is now little more than a PR front for corporations that would obviously abduct you and sell your organs on the open market if the balance sheet looked good. Your faith in both entities, then, is clearly some sort of masochistic lunacy. In light of this the least you could do is open your mind to the full range of credible theories, and there is LOTS of credible stuff that discredits the official account. I believe you admitted this yourself

"..your video intrigued me. Perhaps because it expressed itself with possible fact, and not make believe theories."

Again, what are you so afraid of? Don't pretend to me that your rationality is stronger than your baby fear. I know Americans much too well

"...my education and understandings allow me to pity a conspiracy theorist..."

I'm an Ivy League-steeped polymath, arrogant motherfucker! Education is a lousy substitute for soul and heart, the fearlessness needed to reject your own intellectualized selfishness. If anything, the modern university system seeks to stifle any such capacity. Like I said, too much to lose...
by Beral
Hello guys,
I am a french guy who has just seen the movie 9/11 that last 2h40min, all I have to say is that I was very septic on the conspiracy theory before seeing the movie but now i am doing everything I can to distribute it as many people I can, your only chance as american people is to organise yourself, in order to dispatch that movie and organise huge manifestation out in the street, I am sure the american people have enough enjoyed freedom for not letting this happen again, i cannot find the words to explain how deepfully that movie hit me, this only could happen because of the media, and I invite all american to think about what to do to reverse what the media have became, i guess it is almost the same in france about the media, every day that passes we live in a world that i am less proud of......
I am praying for the truth to be know by everyone.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network