Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.
I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.
I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.
The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.
I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.
The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.
Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.
In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.
But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.
(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).
Former NIST employee, Peter Michael Ketchum, looks on the collapse of Building 7 and why he believes that his former company has not investigated the collapse properly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvAv-114bwM&feature=youtu.be
His name is Ketcham, with an ‘a’. I feel a bit responsible because it was me that first misspelled his name; a subliminal confusion with ketchup, I think. I like the music; it kept reminding me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOSeUqkfu_o
Criticism first… For me, the video was let down by Twin Towers demolition theory; Ketcham’s ignorance of mainstream academic acceptance of progressive collapse will tend to discredit his concerns about Building 7, as will his repetition of obvious fallacies such as the Twin Towers supposedly “falling into their own footprints”. Why do people keep repeating these old chestnuts when anyone can see them to be false? The selective quoting annoyed me as well; at 06:45 they show Danny Jowenko without mentioning his opinion that the Twin Towers fell in progressive collapse, and at 09:31 they edited off the fire-fighter’s statement that WTC7 “came down on its own”.
But on the good side this video shows many clips that I find most interesting…
05:07 – “You want to call your mother?” –
07:49 – “This building’s about to blow up”
– comparing length of shadows and density of dust in the air, these two shots seem to have been taken at around the same time of day. If anyone knows the whole videos from which these clips were taken, please link them.
09:23 – Reporter distracted by sound at WTC7’s collapse.
15:23 – Dust early from bottom of WTC7.
15:39 – A high core remnant, briefly? This WTC1! Suggestive, but not definitive.
17:26 onwards, WTC2:
– 17:30 – Collapse begins,
– 17:32 – first ejections,
– 17:33 – first big ejections, away and left from the far face of the building,
– 17:34 – first big ejections towards camera. I take these big ejections as the start of the internal collapse.
– 17:38 – first emergence from dust of a remnant of the core. Look how high up it is! I’d never noticed this before. It doesn’t last long…
– 17:40 – core remnant falling away, downwards and to the right.
It’s hard to judge due to the shot zooming out, but that piece of core looks to be about the height of WTC2’s damaged zone.
18:14 – “…fall off to the side” – Not likely with those pieces of core still standing.
18:35 – Another good shot of ejections indicating initiation of the internal collapse.
20:43 – WTC7 side-by-side with demolitions. In each case, the images appear to descend together, but more storeys of WTC7 are visible, so WTC7 actually fell faster than any of these other buildings:
– 20:43 18 storeys of WTC7 versus 14
– 20:48 34 storeys of WTC7 versus 17
– 20:53 16 storeys of WTC7 versus 13
21.13 – WTC2 core remnant?
22:14 – In the section picked out with a rectangle we see what I take to be part of the internal collapse wave that seems to have proceeded faster than the rest. I’m puzzled as to why this occurred; maybe a big lump of top perimeter smashing its way down withing lower perimeter. Ironically, it contradicts Ketcham’s earlier claim of near perfect symmetry.
22:37 – “Huge chunks of perimeter beams…” – The material outlined actually looks like many sections of the aluminium exterior cladding.
23:09 – Another shot where we see the ejections I believe to be caused by the internal collapse:
– 23:12 – Beginning of the ejections, soon obscured by material from above falling faster than the downward progression of the ejections,
– 23:15 – ejections become visible again at the nearest corner,
– 23:19 – leading ejections at the far corner become visible.
26:26 – That high shot again, with the high piece of WTC2 core remnant at 26:33
28:35 – Another shot showing that there was dust near the bottom of WTC7 relatively early in its collapse compared with the Twin Towers.
30:40 – A shot showing considerable height to the debris pile.
– 30:55 – Note the box-column ends, with four vacant holes for bolts in each; it looks like the bolts failed rather than the box column sections broke.
I find it highly ironic that so many of Ketcham’s assertions are contradicted so clearly by the visual evidence presented, for instance, those vacannt bolt-holes in the box-column ends do not look like the work of explosives.
HELP REQUESTED!
The clip beginning at 19:18, with a watermarked logo “FPJ”, showing some of Building 7’s collapse… Does anyone know what “FPJ” is? And if you know if the full video from which this clip was taken, please link to it.
No sweat – a simple search ‘9/11 WTC 7 + FPJ’ found it: ‘Foreign Policy Journal’:
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/tag/wtc-7/
Thanks, there’s a little more of it there. According to FPJ, the original is among the NIST FOIA releases. There are hundreds; I might find it one day.
A reference that I missed;
21:29 – Another good view of the rubble pile. Plenty of large steel pieces there, again contradicting Ketcham.
I also find it very intriguing that A&E9/11Truth have included so many of the very best images of the core remnants in this video – the best collection I’ve seen anywhere. Survival of the core (however briefly) beyond the main collapse is good evidence FOR progressive collapse of the floor assemblies, and presents additional difficulties for pre-rigged demolition theories; with the core exposed and stripped to a skeleton, any later thermite combustion to bring down the core would have been visible, or in the case of high explosives, the shock waves would have been seen traversing the dust. Core remnants also help explain the symmetry of the collapses – “a doughnut (the perimeter) sliding down a stick (the core)”.
It’s almost as if A&E9/11Truth’s video producers were trying to discredit Ketcham.
Further to my comment above. Tonight!
http://911freefall.com/911-free-fall-31617-ae911truths-ted-walter-and-former-nist-employee-peter-ketcham/
More declassiified documents on CIA manipulation of the MSM:
‘Newly-Declassified Documents Show that CIA Worked Closely with Owners and Journalists with Many of the Largest Media Outlets’:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-28/newly-declassified-documents-show-senior-cia-agent-and-deputy-director-directorate-i
The Church Committee was very thorough – the PTB have it all sewn up now, with bribery and blackmail (and assassination as a last resort) so that there is never going to be any other ‘proper’ investigations into the CIA, military or government misdeeds.
‘Americas Third World War: How 6 Million People Were Killed In CIA Secret Wars Against Third World Countries’:
‘THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA’: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
This article/video from a CIA Whistle blower might be of interest.
It’s a fascinating and highly informative lecture. I’ve read part 1 so far. Three paragraphs:
CIA actions proceed without government oversight:
– “And the CIA director was required by law to brief the Congress. This CIA director Bill Colby – the same one that dumped our people in Vietnam – he gave 36 briefings of the Congress, the oversight committees, about what we were doing in Angola. And he lied. At 36 formal briefings. And such lies are perjury, and it’s a felony to lie to the Congress.”
Torture is to “get the response you want from the individual” not, as routinely claimed, to find out what is true:
– “We had the `public safety program’ going throughout Central and Latin America for 26 years, in which we taught them to break up subversion by interrogating people. Interrogation, including torture, the way the CIA taught it. Dan Metrione, the famous exponent of these things, did 7 years in Brazil and 3 in Uruguay, teaching interrogation, teaching torture. He was supposed to be the master of the business, how to apply the right amount of pain, at just the right times, in order to get the response you want from the individual.”
Stockwell believes the real intention is to maximise profit for the arms industry:
– “You have to be asking yourself, why are we destabilizing 50 corners of the troubled world? Why are we about to go to war in Nicaragua, the Central American war? It is the function, I suggest, of the CIA, with its 50 de-stabilization programs going around the world today, to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize the American people to hate, so we will let the establishment spend any amount of money on arms….”
@ Clark March 16, 2017 at 22:04
Good stuff! You’re getting the gist!
Paul, I “got the gist” years ago, when I read these articles of Craig’s:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/08/theres_good_mon/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/08/j_a_hobson_impe/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/the_consequence/
The point I keep trying to get across is that if you accuse governments of things they aren’t doing or haven’t done, people who believed you are likely to dismiss valid suspicions when they discover ones that are invalid. People stop following leads if too many turn out to be wild goose chases.
Pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers is a prime example. People see Chandler’s argument and think they’re onto a certain winner; “Newton will win this” they say. But Chandler’s argument is wrong. On discovering that Twin Tower demolition theory lacks mainstream academic support, most people react in ways helpful to covert operators. Many just switch off, abandoning so-called “conspiracy theories” altogether, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A sizeable minority go to the opposite extreme and start believing every whacky theory in sight, degrading their own credibility by becoming “conspiracy theorists”.
Keeping an open mind is the most challenging response of all. I can tell you that I’ve found it very difficult on this thread, with all and sundry either insulting my intelligence or insinuating I’m an agent. Twin Tower demolition theory is so effective that I have to consider the possibility it’s a psi-op.
@ Clark March 17, 2017 at 00:33
‘….The point I keep trying to get across is that if you accuse governments of things they aren’t doing or haven’t done, people who believed you are likely to dismiss valid suspicions when they discover ones that are invalid….’
The point is I am absolutely convinced the ‘government’ were responsible, at least those who were part of the ‘Deep State’ (like Cheney & Rumsfeld).
I checked out the links you gave to Craig’s old posts; he has a very good grasp of what governments get up to under Banksters’ and Financiers’ influence. Pity he’s still blinkered on 9/11!
Here is a short article which you may find of interest: ‘Was Paul Wellstone Murdered?’:
http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110102_wellstone.html
One day you may read a similar headline on an alternative site: ‘Was Paul Barbara Murdered?’.
Paul, Craig isn’t “blinkered on 9/11”; you just have to read what he actually wrote rather than what you think he meant:
– “I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors”
That’s very close to what you call the “Deep State”.
I have a criticism of that term “Deep State”. I described it as “an informal network”, and as such it is not limited by boundaries of nation or citizenship. You call 9/11 “false flag”, but it didn’t even raise any flag! The only claims of responsibility came from fake videos, and those were after the event. We’ve been through all this; the IRA had to set up code words to identify operations as theirs in advance.
Could a “deep state”-type international informal network arrange to have mainly Saudi suicide hijackers crash aircraft into buildings? It looks eminently possible to me, and indeed highly desirable for whoever arranged it due to the degree of deniability it would have conferred. Could such crashes have caused the Twin Towers to collapse? My knowledge of physics and everything I’ve learned about the design, construction and collapse of those buildings suggests that it’s not merely possible but highly probable, and top academics agree.
I’m not saying that the above was necessarily what happened, but insisting upon contradictory conclusions just to spite “the official narrative” looks like just the sort of reaction that psi-ops are designed to provoke, to muddy the water. I have to consider that those who commission covert operations are probably a lot better at designing them than I am at figuring out what really happened.
@ Clark March 17, 2017 at 14:24
‘..“I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors”..’
But that rules out the alleged ‘hijackers’ not being responsible at all.
‘…The only claims of responsibility came from fake videos, and those were after the event….’;
But the government and MSM immediately blamed OBL and alsmost immediately ’19 Arab hijackers’, with no PROOF whatsoever. And there’s you continually going on about ‘proof’. You have accepted the allegations about the ‘hijackers’ with no proof whatsover, just allegations and ‘Red Herring’ false trails deliberately manufactured to sell the ‘hijacking’ narrative.
‘…You call 9/11 “false flag”, but it didn’t even raise any flag!…’
A ‘False Flag’ attack is basically an attack on your own or allies people which is perpetrated or arranged by agents of the government or ‘Deep State’ (also called ‘Shadow Government’ – though you don’t like these terms, they have been used by countless very knowledgeable people, including many ex-‘Security Agents’) and blamed on another government or group in order to give ‘casus belli’ or to crack down internally on rights and civil liberties.
The term comes from a time when ships would fly another country’s flag in order to sail close enough to attack, then either just attack or run up their genuine flag at the last minute, when it would be too late for the victim ship to respond.
‘…Could a “deep state”-type international informal network arrange to have mainly Saudi suicide hijackers crash aircraft into buildings? It looks eminently possible to me, and indeed highly desirable for whoever arranged it due to the degree of deniability it would have conferred….’
Yes, they COULD have arranged that, but they could also have demolished them themselves, or in conjunction with another ‘friendly’ accomplice state.
‘…Could such crashes have caused the Twin Towers to collapse? My knowledge of physics and everything I’ve learned about the design, construction and collapse of those buildings suggests that it’s not merely possible but highly probable, and top academics agree…..’
But other experts’ knowledge of physics say these collapses were not possible without controlled demolition.
‘…I’m not saying that the above was necessarily what happened, but insisting upon contradictory conclusions just to spite “the official narrative” …’
I and many others do not insist upon ‘contradictory conclusions just to spite “the official narrative”, but because that is where the evidence and rational interpretation of events and narratives leads us.
– I and many others do not insist upon ‘contradictory conclusions just to spite “the official narrative”,
Over and over again, for years, I have been accused of “supporting the official narrative” or being some sort of agent because I argue against demolition of the Twin Towers. It really is as simple as that. You and your ilk insist “believe this, or you’re the enemy”. You lot don’t approve of people thinking for themselves; only repetition of approved memes is permitted. It is disrespectful, condescending, utterly infuriating, and when seen as a dynamic of a group, scary.
What you wrote about David Icke? Well that’s what the demolition theorists are to me.
And there are countless millions like me. In my case, I recognise a progressive collapse when I see one (and remember that Danny Jowenko agreed), but your crowd won’t permit me to accept the evidence of my own eyes. On the other hand, ANY other theory is acceptable to you, even if it’s impossible. Apparently, your ONLY criteria for judging an assertion is whether it contradicts the “official narrative” or not. You never stop to consider that the “official narrative” may be cleverer than you think.
I don’t know what the evidence for hijackers is because I’ve wasted so much time defending myself against people bamboozled by Chandler’s false physics argument, and investigating assertions that turn out to be bunk. But I know that hijacking is accepted by serious whistleblowers including Michael Springmann, Coleen Rowley and Susan Lindauer. And I know enough of your methods of assessing evidence to seriously doubt your assertions. Sorry, but that’s what I think.
Further, I expect that the various investigations involved hundreds if not thousands of public employees, just ordinary civilians doing their jobs. I don’t expect perfection, but the degree of fabrication and suppression required to support your assertions is unreasonable.
And the logic doesn’t stand up. If the entire “official narrative” were fabricated, it would never have pinned 9/11 on a bunch of Saudis. Palestinians, Libyans, Syrians, Iranians, Lebanese or Afghanis yes, but not Saudis.
“I recognise a progressive collapse when I see one”
Nobody is disputing that the collapse was progressive. The discussion is about whether it was gravity only or had a bit of extra help.
“ “……..bamboozled by Chandler’s false physics argument”
Your repeating that Chandler got it wrong is not the same as proving it. Apply the same rigour that you expect from others to your own arguments.
Chandler’s argument “proves” that any mass at the top of any structure cannot accelerate under gravity through that structure, if that structure was previously supporting it. Very simple reductio ad absurdum.
Nikko, please try to look at Chandler’s argument without prejudice. There is a reason that argument is rejected by physics and engineering communities, and that reason is not that the CIA is omnipotent.
John Goss, a while ago I asked you about the load-bearing capability of floor assemblies in the Twin Towers:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-105/#comment-657644
May we continue that discussion now?
‘The official 9/11 story has taken too many hits to remain standing’:
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/07/22/is-the-saudi-911-story-part-of-the-deception/
‘James Jesus Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence for three decades, long ago explained to me that intelligence services create stories inside stories, each with its carefully constructed trail of evidence, in order to create false trails as diversions.
Such painstaking work can serve a variety of purposes. It can be used to embarrass or discredit an innocent person or organization that has an unhelpful position on an important issue and is in the way of an agenda. It can be used as a red herring to draw attention away from a failing explanation of an event by producing an alternative false explanation.
I forget what Angleton called them, but the strategy is to have within a false story other stories that are there but withheld because of “national security” or “politically sensitive issues” or some such. Then if the official story gets into trouble, the backup story can be released in order to deflect attention into a new false story or to support the original story. Angleton said that intelligence services protect their necessary misdeeds by burying the misdeed in competing explanations.
Watching the expert craftsmanship of the “Saudis did 9/11” story, I have been wondering if the Saudi story is what Angleton described as a story within a story……….’
This has been my position all along, that the Saudi business was a ‘Red Herring’, though I had never read this article before.
But both Paul Craig Roberts and the ediitor of the FPJ are wrong in stating that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed; it only did that for a part of the collapse. But even that is impossible without explosive demolition.
Yes it could be a “story within a story”. 9/11 could be all sorts of things. Retreat to untestable positions does not get us anywhere.
Thanks for your accuracy about WTC7’s period of approximately free-fall descent. Actually, free-fall acceleration of the visible perimeter isn’t quite impossible without explosives. If internal structure fell first, its lateral connections could have pulled the perimeter down after it. Though this seems very unlikely, Chandler’s raw data suggests that the perimeter’s descent may have actually exceeded free-fall briefly, in which case this is the only reasonable possibility I can think of (I have an unreasonable one but it’s completely mad).
Yes, I have no doubt the ‘Saudis did it’ story is a deliberate false trail. The clue is the fact that it basically supports the official narrative, just with a different set of Middle Eastern perps.
On what basis have you no doubt?
@ KingofWelshNoir March 18, 2017 at 09:24
Quite. But some folks won’t be satisfied till they have a signed confession from the real ‘perps’.
That’s life, already! (But for how long?).
This comment seems to me to translate to “Clark, accept our group prejudice or you are unreasonable”.
‘Support Legal Action on 9/11–At Last!’:
https://www.change.org/p/attorney-general-of-the-u-s-support-legal-action-on-9-11-at-last?source_location=petition_nav
Here’s a Change petition on 9/11.
I suspect it will be nobbled by Change, but we’ll see.
Not on 9/11 or related, but folks need to know about this:
‘Atos Benefits Row: Transplant Patient Linda Wootton Dies After Being Judged ‘Fit For Work’:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/28/linda-wootton-dies-after-being-judged-fit-for-work_n_3346582.html
Nothing new here as such, but encouraging to see somebody like Ketcham going very public with what he knows.
“In this half-hour interview (former NIST scientist) Peter Michael Ketcham tells of his personal journey toward reluctantly concluding his employer of 14 years had deliberately suppressed the truth about the most pivotal event of the 21st century.”
https://off-guardian.org/2017/03/17/video-stand-for-the-truth-former-nist-employee-speak-out/
Sorry, missed the conversation up thread. Had similar concerns to those mentioned above. If something seems too good to be true… Yet at the same time, he seems sincere and very emotional. Not sure what to make of it apart from someone in the early stages of ‘post-denial’ and yet to trawl through all of the available research.
Ketcham is a software developer, not a physicist or an engineer. Yes, he does seem very sincere and emotional, but he repeats many of the wrong arguments popularised by AE9/11″Truth”.
What happened to Building 7 is very disturbing. I don’t think anyone really knows what happened to it. NIST should come clean and admit that they don’t know either and insist that ALL available data be thrown open to the public, but I expect they were under a lot of pressure to “come up with something”.
The critical issue of our time is disclosure. The scientific method and rational analysis have proven themselves extremely powerful, but they are fatally vulnerable to distortion and non-disclosure. This applies across all fields of human endeavour. Our ability to conceal, deceive and manipulate, often even in opposition to our conscious intent, is dragging us to global disaster.
Johan Galtung interviewed by Nafeez Ahmed predicts the decline and fall of the US empire under Trump:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/us-power-will-decline-under-trump-says-futurist-who-predicted-soviet-collapse
– “Galtung has also accurately predicted the 1978 Iranian revolution; the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989 in China; the economic crises of 1987, 2008 and 2011; and even the 9/11 attacks—among other events, according to the late Dietrich Fischer, academic director of the European University Center for Peace Studies”
I also predict the fall of the ‘Evil Empire’, but I cannot predict the timing.
Another thing I can predict is that it will come with a bang, not a whimper; Like their controllers, they have a ‘Sampson Option’, and will use it.
THEN, the Luciferians will meet there Waterloo, on the ‘Day of Judgement’.
I cannot prove it, but I have bet my life on it.
You seem to write in some sort of code. Who are “they”? Who are “their controllers”? And who are “the Luciferians”?
You seem to be staking many more lives than your own upon your personal, human and therefore inevitably sinful judgement.
Will you take your religion seriously? The Spirit of God is within, but so is the Spirit of Evil.
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. And what is sin? To sin is fall short of perfection. Yet you have no doubt of your own judgement, and you praise another for his lack of self-doubt.
@ Clark March 19, 2017 at 12:08
I do actually take my religion seriously, very seriously indeed.
Your biblical quotations suggest a religious upbringing, so you should be well aware that the quotation “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” was to stop a stoning to death of someone who had been accused and judged guilty (whether justifiably or not) of a ‘crime’ officially sanctioned as requiring the said method of execution. And Jesus’ intervention prevented the barbaric execution.
The quotation does not in any way seek to prevent people from opposing crimes, just because we are all sinners.
I do not, and never have nor ever will, claim infallibility. But I do have enough experience and knowledge to rely on my judgement. And I will certainly praise someone who has the same confidence intheir own assessment of whatever, IF it fits in with my assessment. Not exactly ‘Rocket Science’, but we all have to set some kind of dealing with a complex world.
You have not answered me plainly. Who are “they”? Who are “their controllers”? And who are “the Luciferians”?
@ Clark March 19, 2017 at 11:53
No code. It should be perfectly obvious that the us is the entity I refer to as the ‘Evil Empire’. ‘Their controllers’ should also be obvios; search ‘Sampson Option’. ‘Luciferians’, oddly enough, are people who have thrown their lot in with Lucifer, the ‘Fallen Angel’. I can understand your not agreeing or believing what I commented, but I cannot believe you really didn’t understand what I was on about.
As for staking any one else’s life on my ‘predictions’ and beliefs, I don’t quite see how you come to that conclusion. I have staked out my positions; others can believe what they like. Am I sinful? Of course I am, and worse than most. But I do try to spread the truth as I see it.
Ah ha. You do write in code. An anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
Prejudice and bigotry are far from Christian virtues.
@ Clark March 20, 2017 at 15:21
If you think that is either anti-Semitic or a ‘conspiracy theory’ you are out of touch with reality.
“Truth, Justice, Peace”.
But on this thread we cannot even attempt the first hurdle, since truthfulness cannot even be attempted until we overcome sly insinuation and begin to communicate plainly.
@ Clark March 19, 2017 at 12:00
‘..truthfulness cannot even be attempted until we overcome sly insinuation and begin to communicate plainly…’
You seem to be wasting your own and my time, plus comment space, with spurious stuff like that.
Clark
Whenever I can, I volunteer.
Hence my irregular posts, here.
I hesitate to ask why you endlessly clog up this thread, as you seem to do.
“Clog up”? What is it that you would like to flow more freely? Or can I guess?
How utterly, miserably disappointing. False accusations of anti-Semitism are constantly used to attempt to discredit those who criticise Israeli foreign policy and US support thereof. And here awe have the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, busily creating justification for those false claims.
People who can’t see themselves for part of the problem, and actually believe that thy’re helping to provide some sort of solution.
No hope for humanity.
Here, fools and fantasists. Read a rationalist who cares about all humanity, and knows fair criticism from foul. Nafeez Ahmed:
http://www.nafeezahmed.com/2017/03/the-great-unravelling.html
I’ve met the guy and know he is sound.
Well Ahmed doesn’t think much of Twin Tower demolition theories. Maybe you should start listening to what he says:
http://www.nafeezahmed.com/2015/08/911-conspiracy-theory-and-bullshit.html
@ Clark March 20, 2017 at 15:38
By the way, Nafeez Ahmed contributes to the ‘Zero’ video, which you said you were working through, if I remember rightly.
Did you ever manage to get through it, and what was your opinion?
I just checked. I downloaded a copy and watched the first seventeen minutes or so (my video player will reopen a video at the point I last closed it). They were wittering on about the collapses of the Twin Towers with all the usual misrepresentations; I expect I lost patience. I’ll probably watch the rest sometime, but obviously the low standards displayed so far will cause me to be very sceptical.
I also have more substantive videos to watch, for instance, how the NSA introduce vulnerabilities into community-maintained software:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwcl17Q0bpk
My reply to this is above, @ Paul Barbara March 21, 2017 at 11:44.
I seem to have put it in the wrong place.
ILLUMINATI NWO SATANIC DEATH CULT EXPOSED:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOpp_eNFtYk
Very good video, though I don’t agree with some of the speculation.
Just a timely reminder: June 8th this year will be the 50th Anniversary of the murderous attack on the USS Liberty:
I posted this comment last year:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/07/barbarians-at-the-gate s/comment-page-2/#comment-615669
‘Remember the Liberty’ should be our ‘War Cry’ for 2017!!!!
It’s relevance to what is going down today cannot be overstated.
Hope you’re not getting all ‘anti-semitic’ on us, Paul ? 🙂
Not at all, unless telling the truth about historical facts is so classed (as seems to be the case with some folks!).
If people generally understood what really happened on June 8th 1967, it would go a huge way in sorting out the Middle East today.
– “…as seems to be the case with some folks!”
Innuendo again. NO. The assertion that the United States is controlled by Israel is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Paul Barbara made that assertion here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-107/#comment-662293
– “I also predict the fall of the ‘Evil Empire’, [ie. the US] …Like their controllers, they have a ‘Sampson Option’, and will use it”
And going on and on about the USS Liberty, over and over again, as if it had some bearing upon 9/11. It doesn’t.
Then there’s the sort of evidence we’re supposed to accept. Some European performance artists were permitted to use unprofitable space in one of the Twin Towers. Some of them had, allegedly, been to a party at a prominent Israeli’s flat (an Israeli in New York! Shock! Horror!) and one of their surnames was “Urban”, which is the same as in “Urban Moving Systems”, allegedly a Mossad front company. Therefore, a load of empty cardboard boxes in the unprofitable space that had contained mains electrical distribution components (as can be checked from the supplier’s catalogue) just had to be radio-controlled demolition components, and these performance artists had rigged at least that Tower for controlled demolition in the few minutes that they performed a publicity stunt on the outside of the building.
That is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, because merely having attended an Israeli’s party is taken as incriminating. It’s circular reasoning, too.
Then there’s the spoof document “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars An Introduction Programming Manual Operations Research Technical Manual TW-SW7905.1”, again linked by Paul Barbara, here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-106/#comment-658985
Loosely based upon parts of the anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, it mentions finance, but only one financier in particular. You’ll never guess… Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1743 – 1812.
Before you start lecturing me, I’m well aware that pro-Israel and pro-neocon propagandists use accusations of anti-Semitism to further their agenda, and rather than just bitch I try to do something about it. For instance, at the following link you can see the changes I made to a very cleverly constructed misrepresentation of Paul Flynn on the Wiki entry about him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Flynn_%28politician%29&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=730732030&oldid=729803246
I was aware that discussion of 9/11 was riddled with so-called “conspiracy theories”, but when Reverend Stephen Sizer was accused of supporting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for linking to a particular article about 9/11, I took it as the usual propagandistic exaggeration. But I’m appalled at what I’ve been finding on this thread. Here I am trying to contribute to solutions, while Paul Barbara and his ilk are busy contributing to the problem; creating justifications for the propagandists, making ammo for them to fire.
Paul, I can’t tell whether you’re actually anti-Semitic or have just been taken in by some of the anti-Semitism that runs rampant, but you need to put your house in order.
I know what you are up to – trying to smear me with anti-semitism, so as to get my comments removed or worse.
Ariel Sharon said it himself (though of course some people try to deny it, as they do all highly embarrassing quotes):
Ariel Sharon:” We, the ***ish People, Control America, and The Americans Know it”
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2009/05/ariel-sharon-we-the-jewish-people-control-america-and-the-americans-know-it/
There are a number of other disgustingly racist, anti-Semitic quotes on there as well, but anti-Semitic against the other Semites, the Arabs. But perhaps they don’t count.
I will repeat – stating OBVIOUS facts, believed, written and said by highly intelligent and aware Americans and others, does NOT constitute anti-Semitism.
And I certainly don’t go ‘on and on’ about the USS Liberty, though I should, because if the truth were known to ordinary Americans, and to the ordinary military, US aid and support to Israel would stop dead.
They would no longer be shielded from the cosequences of their brutality to Palestinians, and theft of their land.
If you think THAT is anti-Semitic, I personally saw an old newsreel clip of Moshe Dyan being interviewed; he was in military combat gear, standing near his jeep; he already had the eye-patch (he lost his eye in 1941). I think the interview was in the late 1940’s; anyhow he was asked by the reporter/cameraman if he thought there would ever be peace between the *ews and Arabs, and replied very frankly: ‘No, because we stole their land’.
I repeat, that is not hearsay; I saw the interview on TV and recorded it on VHS, but though I still have it, I couldn’t find it as I have too many unmarked VHS recordings.
Indicate to me the links where I go ‘on and on’ – shouldn’t be difficult, if I do it as often as you say.
And the good Reverend Sizer lost his job, for telling the truth.
– “I know what you are up to – trying to smear me with anti-Semitism, so as to get my comments removed or worse”
No. I’m TRYING to point out two things; that there really are anti-Semitic theories that make accusations against Israel on the basis of no real evidence, and that consequently there are both pitfalls and traps, and quite a few actors just waiting for you to stumble into a pitfall in the hope they can nudge you on into a trap.
So what that Ariel Sharon said that? Tell me, was he by any chance boasting to his constituency? Israel clearly has disproportionately large influence, but the US is still by far the more powerful country, and clearly it is not “controlled”. But the claim that Jews control everything IS an anti-Semitic trope which has been promoted again and again over centuries. By repeating it, you’re laying yourself open to accusations of anti-Semitism, and I’m trying to warn you.
Still, if you think of Jews as “Christ killers” (is this what you mean by “Luciferians”?), probably no rational discussion is possible.
“But I’m appalled at what I’ve been finding on this thread. Here I am trying to contribute to solutions, while Paul Barbara and his ilk are busy contributing to the problem; creating justifications for the propagandists, making ammo for them to fire.
Paul, I can’t tell whether you’re actually anti-Semitic or have just been taken in by some of the anti-Semitism that runs rampant, but you need to put your house in order.”
Thank you, Clark, for making my point for me. Please go and clog up another thread.
Sorry Bob, what point was that? You don’t seem to have made one, and you didn’t answer my question about what direction you think discussion should take.
I don’t think the thread is “clogging up”, there’s no restriction on the flow of comments. Anti-Semitism and avoiding its use as a propaganda tool both seem to me like subjects relevant to discussion of 9/11.
Thank you Clark.
Please watch this right through and then comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBAlxJVwMgc
Did Bill Cooper die in a shoot-out with police officers? Can you link to the CNN piece he referred to?
Yes I knew about the Israelis deported for spying. There was widespread foreknowledge of 9/11.
Ten minutes in and I’m getting bored with the wrestling. Yes, I knew the political class were as thick as thieves, and that Republican and Democrat parties alike support Israel to the hilt. I agree it’s wrong, and that neocon and neo-Zionist objectives converge, to destabilise and wage war in the Middle East
Oh, now we’re onto the supposed “pool of molten steel”. Yes, there was some steel that appeared to have been partially evaporated – from Building 7. Regarding the Twin Towers, Leslie Robertson reported a trickle of molten metal, and the flowing metal that the firefighters saw couldn’t have been steel, unless the “channel rails” were made of something with an even higher melting point – that’s just basic physics. I’ve examined the building collapses in considerable detail and concluded that damage and fire initiated total collapse of the Twin Towers, but that Building 7’s collapse remains inadequately explained, But how does any of this bear upon who was responsible?
Now were onto the dramatic music and a load of stills that have no evidential bearing upon 9/11. Christopher Bollyn is saying that the steel of the WTC turned into dust, which is untrue. He’s saying that nothing was found of the victims in the Twin Towers, which is untrue. He’s saying that all the dust was scorching hot, which is untrue.
Now he’s talking about the out-of-court compensation settlements; I knew about those. Who would the other defendants have been? He’s talking about the hijackers and saying that airport security didn’t stop them – so he presumably accepts that hijackings occurred. He’s saying that Larry Silverstein made a profit on the insurance, but I don’t know how true that is – I’m certainly not going to take Bollyn’s word for it.
He’s just called Larry Silverstein “the godfather of the 9/11 attacks”, but has presented no evidence against him. Now he’s mentioning all sorts of rich and prominent Israelis, but presenting no evidence against them either. Accusation without evidence looks like prejudice, doesn’t it?
Yes I know that 9/11 was very advantageous for both neocon and neo-Zionist objectives. In that regard and others, the official account of 9/11 would closely resemble the proxy extremist actions against Libya and Syria, would it not?
@ Clark March 25, 2017 at 04:52
My comment at Paul Barbara March 23, 2017 at 00:41 was put under moderation, but has now appeared, so the mods obviously don’t consider my comment (and others that have appeared) as ‘anti Semitic’.So it looks like you are crying ‘wolf’, barking up a gum tree, once again, as is your wont.
Just because some moderators at this blog have approved some comments does not mean that your opinions and style of argument are immune from attracting criticism for being anti-Semitic – whether they are actually motivated by anti-Semitism or not.
The point I’m making is that accusations of anti-Semitism ARE used as a propaganda tool (as well as sometimes being justified), so it’s important to present only well-evidenced arguments.
Thank you, Clark for your comment, and patience.
Would you please watch, and comment on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
I’ll watch the next one after we’ve discussed the previous one; you haven’t even attempted to answer my questions yet.
I just looked, and that’s a five hour video.
I don’t even have sufficient space for it on my system at present; I’m hopefully doing a file system clean-up over the next week or so. I don’t just sit and watch videos and form an “impression” – that would just be like watching telly. Videos only have evidential value when they are eye-witness vids, or when they record someone’s lecture or testimony. Consequently, to assess evidence presented as video I download it and make notes with time references as I watch. For a five hour vid that will take me a couple of working days at least.
If the video has evidential value, it will be by referring to documents or testimony, all of which should be available elsewhere. Can you not summarise and provide links? Even if you do, I’m not moving on until we’ve dealt with the previous one.
Incidentally, you’ve a bit of a nerve accusing me of “clogging up the thread” while yourself posing links that take five hours just to watch!
Regarding the attack on Pearl Harbour, I believe there is a contested historical perspective that the attack was deliberately unopposed to create a public pretext for bringing the US into WWII, and I know that the neocon PNAC wrote that a “new Pearl Harbour” would be required to create a pretext for the implementation of the policies outlined in their paper Rebuilding America’s Defenses. That’s a very tenuous link, and ogically, proving something about the Pearl Harbour attack proves nothing about 9/11.
I hope that saves some time 🙂
You should watch the video, before you complain.
The idea that its length excuses:
-your not watching it;
–your posting a lengthy complaint;
really makes my point.
Hasta la vista, Clark.
What POINT, Bob? You STILL haven’t stated any point, except that you allegedly have one.
– “Hasta la vista, Clark”
Well the most popular current reference for that is from Terminator. Do you mean you’d like to kill me? Because I’m not complying quickly enough? Who does that remind me of? Oh yes; fascists; that’s what they do.
Try improving your image by discussing the previous vid.
Clark
As you know
It means “See you later..”.
Please now watch the film, and comment, as you consider appropriate.
@ Clark March 25, 2017 at 19:20
Of course evidence will be contested – that’s how lawyers make pots.
But if you were to read ‘Day of Deceit’ by Robert B. Stinnett, I think the evidence he comes up with is overwhelming. He is a very highly decorated US Naval Officer, retired, and is still alive (he writes for the ‘Lighthouse’, a right-wing website) and he does not blame FDR, he is just presenting the truth.
I forgot to say he researched the book for 17 years.
Fair enough, but logically, whatever the book shows about the Pearl Harbour attack still tells us nothing about 9/11.
That’s the thing. You need more than suspicion. You need a document, or an order, or a leak, or someone caught in some act – as best you can, you need to show who did what in helping to achieve the outcomes.
Stinnett made it all up.
http://www.salon.com/2001/06/14/fdr/
Anyway because other false flag events may have happened in the past is not evidence that 9/11 was a false flag.
Kempe, that’s a good article; thanks. I know next to nothing about the Pearl Harbor attack, but the “conspiracy theorist” attitude towards evidence is well described. Various comments on this thread had reminded me of creationist arguments:
– “One of the things that is most notable about the way the “FDR knew” theory is sustained is that its methodology parallels that of so-called creation science. The trick in both instances is to assiduously ignore all the mountains of evidence in favor of the theory you are trying to disprove and to focus instead on tiny apparent discrepancies and supposed “missing links” in the record. “True to the M.O. of all conspiracy theorists,” Budiansky notes, “the ABSENCE of further documentary evidence actually confirms [the] thesis by proving that a ‘cover-up’ has taken place.” “
@ Kempe March 26, 2017 at 03:23
I suggest you read the book before commenting. Throwing up an actress’ account against a highly decorated US Naval Officer (Retd.) who spent 17 years researching his book doesn’t cut the mustard with me.
And Stinnett was not hostile to FDR; he thought what he did was right. So he would hardly ‘make up ‘evidence’ to smear FDR.
‘…Anyway because other false flag events may have happened in the past is not evidence that 9/11 was a false flag.’
Absolutely correct; but given the long history of the US (and indeed other countries also) using ‘False Flag’ operations to create a ‘Casus belli’ or an excuse to crack down on peoples’ civil rights, it is a good indicator that the same occurred on 9/11 – after all, it is obvious the Corporations, Banksters and Milittary wanted an excuse to attack the Middle East, for oil, to Balkanise Israel’s potential enemies, and to position strategic bases in the highly oil-rich and Geo-strategic Middle East. Read Zbigniew Brzezinski’s ‘Grand Chessboard’, and see Wesley Clarks ‘7 governments in 5 years’.
The ‘False Flag’ trick almost always works (a very rare exception was the USS Liberty attack), so why change it?
– “… an actress’ account against a highly decorated US Naval Officer”
Actress?
– “Judith Greer is a writer who lives near Charleston, S.C. She is a former Air Force officer and graduate of the University of Southern California’s School of International Relations”
Two people with the same name? Oh, no, that never happens in “conspiracy theorists” world.
Greer goes through many specific points. You’ve got the book, you should provide the references to show where her points are wrong.
– “…the long history of the US (and indeed other countries also) using ‘False Flag’ operations to create a ‘Casus belli’ or an excuse to crack down on peoples’ civil rights, it is a good indicator that the same occurred on 9/11”
Not at all, but that doesn’t stop you insisting it’s a proven fact. Your whole argument is back-to-front. You start with your conclusion, and then use it to bolster all sorts of things you present as “evidence”.
You’ll no doubt miss my point yet again. You’ll take this comment as me “supporting the establishment”. It’s not. By definition, the establishment hold the most power. To effectively counter their narrative you need to present argument and evidence of the very highest standard. Oh you probably don’t care whether you lose because you just enjoy the fighting.
‘U.S. Had Foreknowledge of Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor. Let It Happen to Justify American Entry Into WWII’:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32763.htm
Includes a BBC documentary, and other very interesting information.
And don’t forget the Lusitania, 1,200 people sacrificed in order to be a strong spur to America embroiling itself in WWI.
@ Clark March 26, 2017 at 19:39
The ‘actress’ was also an author; I still don’t know if it is the same person; perhaps not. I did try to ascertain if it was the same Greer’.
Anyhow, there is no way she can compete with a highly decorated Naval Officer, (Retd.) who researched his book for 17 years.
So far as I am concerned ‘…To effectively counter their narrative you need to present argument and evidence of the very highest standard….’, that is precisely what I did; I gave the most scholarly, comprehensive evidence available, Robert Stinnett’s book.
Of course there are ‘debunkers’ out there, paid to defend the Establishment narrative.
I have already read the book, and gave it to a visiting Japanese survivor of the atom bomb attacks, so I can’t painstakenly scour the book to counter the ‘debunkers’. No matter what I came up with, you, Kempe and others would insist on supporting the Establishment narrative.
Understand one thing: I do not comment on here simply to try to convince you and Kempe; there are other people who are not so hidebound in support of the PTB who read these threads as well, thank God.
I notice you haven’t come up with all the comments showing me going ‘on and on’ about the USS Liberty – hardly surprising, as I don’t.
And you can’t include this one, as you made you ‘accusation’ prior to this comment.
But in the spirit of giving the best evidence possible, I have previously quoted Peter Hounam’s book ‘Operation Cyanide’, re the Liberty.
I am fully aware that there have been many debunking articles, hardly surprising, seeing the damning conclusion Hounam comes up with, from extremely good sources.
And of course, there is the ‘balance of probability’ argument; Corporations and Banksters love wars, to sell arms, capture markets and sources of raw materials, and for subsequent ‘reconstruction’ contracts – and they control the governments.
The military High Command also like wars; without them, they’d be out of a job. They provide the best opportunities for rapid promotions, and the preparation for them provides lots of new, ever more lethal ‘toys’.
Author Joan Mellen accepts Hounam’s theory about the USS Liberty and furnishes additional evidence for it in her recent book Faustian Bargains: Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace in the Robber Baron Culture of Texas.
Perhaps the strongest reason for believing Stinnett’s case, in my opinion, is that it was accepted by Gore Vidal. Vidal, as the son of a cabinet officer in FDR’s administration, the grandson of a leading Democratic senator, Thomas Gore, after whom he was named, and a graduate of Sidwell and St. Albans schools, was tied in to the whole D.C. establishment, especially on the Democratic side. He was well aware of what people in the D.C. establishment were telling each other.
Me, March 26, 19:39:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-107/#comment-664000
– You’ll no doubt miss my point yet again. You’ll take this comment as me “supporting the establishment”
Paul Barbara, March 27, 01:24:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-107/#comment-664046
– “…there are other people who are not so hidebound in support of the PTB”
QED.
It’s not actually impossible to extinguish a fire with gasoline. If you have enough gasoline and can dump it onto the fire fast enough, you could smother the fire without the gasoline getting hot enough to burst into flames. But you’d have replaced the original fire with a much larger fire hazard.
Governments bullshit. You can attempt to smother government bullshit with counter-bullshit, but the inevitable result is a much larger pile of bullshit than if you’d done nothing at all.
– “Alt-Bullshit, Justice, Peace”?
What do I mean by bullshit? This –
– “The ‘actress’ was also an author; I still don’t know if it is the same person; perhaps not”
Previously:
– “Throwing up an actress’ account against a highly decorated US Naval Officer (Retd.) who spent 17 years researching his book doesn’t cut the mustard with me”
That’s bullshitting. It’s not a lie because Paul Barbara has no respect for truthfulness; if you don’t care what the truth is, you can’t be accused of lying. The defining characteristic of bullshitting is that truthfulness does not matter, that the only value of language is its power to manipulate others.
But many people do not wish to be manipulated. They do not want their mind filled with fallacies just because those fallacies contradict some other set of fallacies..
TRUTH, justice, peace – we’re still struggling with the first hurdle.
Not a lie, just an error; someone with the same name. And it has very little material importance, because the ‘lady’ did not research the subject herself, but relied on other people’s opinion.
Whereas Robert Stinnett spent 17 years researching his book; I wonder how much time Greer spent reading ‘debunking’ government-friendly hit pieces?
As I said, you would be in a much stronger position to comment on the book if you read it. You admitted yourself you knew ‘next to nothing’ about Pearl, yet spring to accept some hit-piece articles, rather than a well researched book. Slight pro-PTB bias there, I should say.
The point is that you described the author as an actress despite the description of her in the article. It was convenient in order to dismiss her, so you made something up and presented it as fact – that is bullshitting.
– “Slight pro-PTB bias there, I should say.”
No. I appreciated Greer’s article because it was well-argued and raised criticisms that can actually be checked. It’s not about supporting “the PTB”. I’m not even saying that Greer’s article is right. I’m saying that raises specific, well-defined points in such a way as to be checkable.
@ Clark March 27, 2017 at 22:12
If you say it’s bullshitting, then you must be right – that’s one thing you’re an expert on, being full of it.
Yes, her article CAN be checked. But of course you didn’t do it. Stinnett’s book can also be checked, and you didn’t read that either.
Paul, I’m not particularly interested in the attack on Pearl Harbour; the world has more serious problems now.
Among the more serious problems are people’s attitude to media. Most people don’t think; they just pick from a menu and eat whatever’s served up. You just make unusual choices; you’ve already admitted you’re not interested in critical thinking.
So eat, drink and be merry…
Kempe, same goes for you. Not about this, but a couple of months ago I caught you bullshitting about nuclear physics. When challenged, you just sidled off.
I don’t bullshit.
Kempe, I’m very surprised to find you at the Cuckoo Cluck Clan’s corner! 😉 Keep them straight, anyway.
Kempe, February 7, 20:55:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-104/#comment-654476
– “Fissile materials decay, radiation is the product of this decay as is the heat which is harnessed in nuclear power stations. Criticality occurs when the chain reaction inside a reactor becomes self sustaining, it’s the normal operating mode and unlikely to happen by accident in a damaged reactor.”
Nuclear fuel decays so slowly that it could not be the source of power in a nuclear reactor. Decay heat (of fission products) is very much secondary to heat of fission. Criticality (indeed, prompt criticality) apparently occurred at Chernobyl after the reactor core had been blown out of the building. And decay seems very unlikely to account for the sudden increase in radiation at Fukushima earlier this year.
On another subject, I found that there was a significant increase in thyroid cancers in people exposed to the aftermath of 9/11.
@ Clark March 27, 2017 at 21:54
‘…On another subject, I found that there was a significant increase in thyroid cancers in people exposed to the aftermath of 9/11.’
I’ve got an open mind on the mini-nukes under the Twin Towers; I’m going to a meeting shortly on that very issue.
Mini-nukes theory is a non-starter. The Twin Towers very visibly collapsed from the damaged zones downward. Pre-buried nukes would have blown them upward. Oh you can speculate about some unknown type of nuke, but then you may as well say that faeries did it; neither theory is testable.
But Kempe claimed there was no increase in thyroid cancers, but there was – though not nearly as much as if nukes had been detonated.
Really, Paul; the collapses of the Twin Towers do not defy physics. John Goss cleared off after I got him to admit that the floor assemblies could only support about eleven times their own weight, and has avoided engagement ever since. The rest of the collapses follow from the relative weakness of the floor assemblies.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/15b12aafd64525ec
More from A&E for Truth.
@ Bobm March 28, 2017 at 16:15
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/15b12aafd64525ec
I got this when I clicked on your link: ‘The conversation that you requested no longer exists.’
John Goss did not clear off. He just laughed at your idea that the floors could have destroyed the superstructure. Still laughing in fact. 😀 😀 😀
I am trying, again.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/15b12aafd64525ec
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
Does this work?
Charming, John. You don’t seem to know how to have a technical discussion.
The floors didn’t destroy the cores or the perimeters. The core of WTC2 from the damage zone down can be seen standing as the dust clears away from the top of where the building was; see 17:38 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOSeUqkfu_o
See my comment here for notes:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-107/#comment-661497
If you want to understand the collapses of the Twin Towers, all you have to do is watch the collapse videos carefully and do some rough calculation. First the section above the damaged zone begins to descend. Shortly after that, the internal collapse of floor assemblies initiates just below the damaged zone, indicated by horizontal ejections. Fresh ejections initiate beneath in a wave that accelerates downwards. This is the internal collapse of floor assemblies. Unsurprisingly, it is the fastest component of the collapse, since the mostly concrete floor assemblies presented the least resistance in the whole structure.
Behind (ie. above) the internal collapse follows the external “peeling” of the perimeter, which relied on the floor assemblies for lateral support. Without the floor assemblies it began to fall outward, breaking into sections under its own immense weight. Photos of the debris indicate failure of the bolts which connected the box-columns vertically.
The core stood longest, presumably undercut by the crush of half a million tonnes of concrete all around it.
Bobm, I’m guessing that you tried to link to your own Inbox. You don’t want that to work, or everyone could read your e-mail (not just NSA, CIA, GCHQ etc. etc. etc).
Oops, I linked the wrong video in my 20:48 comment above. It should have been this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvAv-114bwM
Thank you, Clark.
I don’t believe, for a minute, that the organisations you name are not reading all of this, already.
If you think otherwise, please say why.. I’d like to know
The link is here,as it was before
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
You failed to to respond before. Now?
Oh I read that article months back; nothing new there. Europhysics News didn’t seem to realise what they were publishing and ended up rather embarrassed – link available.
The NSA etc. don’t read all the e-mail; they couldn’t, there’s just far too much of it. They store it, and only read what keyword scans flags up, I should think. But we know from Snowden that the NSA are just customers; the contractors get primary access, and their motivations are commercial rather than political.
@ Bobm March 28, 2017 at 20:41
The first still doesn’t work, but the Europhysics one does.
Do you want me to bring its content up when I have dinner with David Knapp this evening. He is one of my nephews.
The internet is such a small world, as we have never apparently run into one another before.
BBC4 now. Gravity and Me. Some need this lesson more than others.
Innuendo, innuendo. Do let me know if you ever feel like having a technical discussion.
Bit of algebra: X + handful = 2,834 A&E + 21,457 supporters (where ‘X’ = you)!
Is that technical enough for you? Still, you could always fall back on ‘yes, but everyone thought the sun went round the earth, till I discovered otherwise’!
All the same, Paul – you have to watch out for the “appeal to popularity/ authority” logical fallacy. Popular appeal (just about) voted that damned fool Dubbya Bush, and now Trump into office. The Sun is still the most popular paper among the salt-of-the-earth working class, while The Mail holds sway among those who like to think of themselves above the general riff-raff.
Just look at the height of the piles of these rags next time you’re in a newsagent, compared with the thin offering for quality papers – if they are available at all.
@ glenn_uk March 29, 2017 at 03:18
I’m not quite sure what you mean; my point is Clark (with no degree in either subject) and some others think they know better architectural and engineering characteristics of high rise steel framed buildings than getting on for 3,000 real, accredited architects and engineers. But it’s not a popular position for them to take – some have lost their jobs, and I’m sure (though I have no evidence) that many have been ‘blackballed’ by government contractors.
And it’s not ‘popular’ among the majority of the brainwashed masses – I know from my personal campaigns to raise awareness. I’m known as ‘conspiracy Paul’ (used to be ‘nutty Paul’) in my local pub.
As for quality papers, you mean like Pravda and Izvestia? Not many of them about at all!
As 9/11 and other events are cast in the context of between “them and us” its understandable that the general public will recoil from a message that seems to favour “them” rather than “us”, unless they have a particular interest in the subject. So although the temptation is the point out the obvious nonsense of it all, a more softly, softly approach is needed. I.e. point out a something in a round about and curious sort of way and ask if they can explain it, and then work backwards, so they can think it through and come to a conclusion, rather than being told up front by a “conspiracy theorist” as they may dismiss it out of hand without thinking for a range of reasons.
Architects and structural engineers absolutely SHOULD lose their jobs if, for instance, they accept Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” argument, or if they deny that the Twin Towers could have undergone progressive collapse. It’s important that architects and structural engineers are COMPETENT, because the safety of buildings does actually matter.
@ Dave March 29, 2017 at 11:09
That approach could work with people who are willing and able to think for themselves – unfortunately they are few and far between.
I only found out recently that the US arranged for firebrand Muslim missionaries were sent into many of the Mosques in America, built by radicalised Black converts to Islam, to preach Jihad during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The people they recruited were sent first to guerrilla training camps in Pakistan, and later training camps were set up in the US. The brainwashed new Jihadis were paid thousands through the CIA, but most did not realise who was behind the scheme.
Black youth have been serially targeted for decades, or I should say centuries. In WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam they were second-class cannon fodder. In the filthy Iran/Contra affair, there was a third leg to it, not often mentioned – the huge amounts of cocaine shipped into the States by CIA agents and assets, which created the absolutely huge epidemic in cocaine use, mainly targeted at the Black ghettos (as had the heroin during the same CIA importation of heroin during the Vietnam war (some imported in body bags of dead soldiers, and even inside the bodies – I wonder what the dead soldiers relatives and loved ones would think of that if they knew)). Yet still the youth haven’t woken up, and go off to fight Uncle Sam’s dirty wars and interventions.
The same type of thing goes on here in the UK; some may wonder why extreme ‘Preachers of hate’ don’t get their collars felt here, but it is just radicalising at presumably MI5’s behest, to get new Jihadis for foreign interventions abroad, and to groom patsies to be groomed for ‘False Flag’ attacks or hoaxes here.
Paul Barbara, 15:03 above – precisely, so I don’t understand why you’re so antagonistic to the idea that 9/11 could have been a similar type of operation.
Technicality – if such operations are incited by extremist clerics and perpetrated by those they indoctrinate, is it really appropriate to refer to them as “false flag”?
Europhysics have published another article putting the record straight.
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2017/01/epn2017481p18.pdf
@ Kempe March 29, 2017 at 10:05
I’m sure A&E will tear to pieces the twaddle of these two lying government stooges. As these are technical issues, I’ll leave it to the experts to deal with, experts who haven’t sold their souls, experts who are not sociopaths and who care about lives and government crimes and treason.
So you haven’t any observations to make apart from the usual ad hominem?
Hmmm. Bažant and Le’s latest offering is again based on the “crush-down-then-crush-up” model. Since that model fails to match observation, this paper will not definitively refute AE9/11″Truth”.
I’m mystified as to why Bažant repeatedly defends that theory.
Kempe, Bažant’s latest defence of the “crush-down-then-crush-up” model does not “put the record straight”, because that model asserts that the perimeter and core were crushed alongside the floor assemblies. Any fool can watch the videos and see that the floors went first, followed by the perimeters, and finally the cores. Further, Bažant’s model requires that the majority of steel uprights would be buckled, but we can see from the debris pile that the vast majority of them were still straight, the interconnecting bolts having failed.
You put some pictures of the outer columns buckling. It’s not necessary for all of them to buckle, just enough to weaken the structure sufficient to initiate collapse.
– “It’s not necessary for all of them to buckle, just enough to weaken the structure sufficient to initiate collapse”
I agree that that is what happened, but it’s not the “crush-down-then-crush-up” model, which involves (and calculates energy absorption for) all the columns buckling. It’s as if Bažant set up a straw man, a false argument that’s easy to knock down, and Szuladzi, Szambotinski and Johns duly obliged.
@ Clark March 29, 2017 at 15:01
They have no choice but to stick to their (lying) guns – what else can they do, admit the truth?
The pair of them should be pensioned off and sent to retire in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Yemen, so they can live out their days wondering at the atrocities they have tried to justify (insofar as all wars and interventions have been done under the ‘umbrella’ of 9/11, though other issues are used in each circumstance. like WMD’s in Iraq – which would not have cut the mustard without the lies of 9/11).
Paul, it’s not as simple as that. It’s not a binary choice between “crush-down-then-crush-up” versus “controlled demolition”. BOTH are wrong. The observations and debris don’t support either.
I’ve no idea what Bažant’s up to; it doesn’t make sense. He’s eighty so I suppose he could be losing it; got really stubborn and refuses to give up on earlier work. Wouldn’t be the first time that had happened to an old professor.
According to a communication received this morning from A & E for 9/11 Truth there are now 3,000 architects and engineers who support A & E for 9/11 Truth. This article was co-authored by 4 of them including two former university chairs and they even mention that some of it is based on speculation.
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
I have no doubt that detractors on this blog will be able to easily dismantle the arguments of such specialists.
Incidentally last month I posted a comment about how structurally strong the twin towers were with their inner and outer structures.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-105/#comment-657575
It includes a photo during construction which demonstrates just how solidly-engineered the buildings were. Instead of noticing this fact Clark went off on one of his pet NIST theories about how weak the floors were. It was of course more nonsense but showed how certain people with pet theories cannot see beyond their own narrow myopic field of vision and address the issue – were they strong or not. Such visionaries the scientific world can do well without.
John, I can barely stand your aggression. PLEASE give it a break. What happened, happened; I just try to work out what I can.
I can’t defend NIST’s version of the collapse mechanism because NIST didn’t propose one; they copped out beyond collapse initiation. If you’d read the NIST report you’d know that.
– “If you’d read the NIST report you’d know that.”
…or even if you’d just paid attention to Ketcham.
Don’t be such an objectionable and supercilious know-all. Nothing you have ever written on here gives you the right to preach down to me. Everybody knows that the NIST report stopped at the point of collapse but only because Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth pointed it out when they dismantled the official version. You just jumped on the bandwagon much later. You supported the NIST version for ages before that if I recall correctly.
You call me aggressive yet you brought my name into the conversation yesterday claiming some kind of victory which could only satisfy somebody like you. That was despite the fact that because of your nonsense ideas I stopped commenting on here and will do again forthwith.
John, what I said was true. You ceased conversation after you admitted that a floor assembly could only take the weight of about eleven times its own mass. I raised the matter again, but you still chose not to engage.
This one fact leads to an obvious conclusion. After the section above the damaged zone started to fall, either a cosmic coincidence landed all the broken upper column ends precisely upon lower ones, or the failure of the topmost standing floor assembly was inevitable. If the topmost failed then so would the next, and the next, and so on. And that’s what the videos show; a very rapid internal cascade of destruction of floor assemblies, bypassing the much greater vertical resistance of the steel frame.
So Bažant was right, but for entirely wrong reasons; once started, complete collapse indeed became inevitable. But his original paper is more physics than engineering; I expect engineers looked at it, thought “eh?”, and moved on.
Yes I did support NIST NCSTAR1 more than I do now. I have been learning and reasoning as I go, so my position has changed somewhat.
@ John Goss March 29, 2017 at 15:08
From your first link, http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf , a few simple double and triple this, halve and quadruply decrease that, and ‘Bingo’! – we have a ‘workable’ scenario, just like they did re WTC 7.
But our resiident ‘debunkers’ probably won’t address such issues – top would come to a standstill after one or two floors? Utter bunkum, they will doubtless snort (if they respond). Plenty more ‘goodies’ in the article! to an ‘elephants in the room’ question, our sleuths could well reply (if they were honest): ‘I can’t see any – by the way, how do you like my new-fangled blinkers? Amazing things! I bought them from Tony Bliar!’:
‘In January 2011 [11] Bažant and another graduate student of his, Jia-Liang Le, attempted to dismiss the lack-of-deceleration criticism by claiming there would be a velocity loss of only about 3%, which would be too small to be observed by the camera resolution. Le
and Bažant also claimed conservation-of-momentum velocity loss would be only 1.1%. However, it appears that Le and Bažant
erroneously used an upper section mass of 54.18×10 6th kg and an impacted floor mass of just 0.627×10 6th kg, which contradicted the floor mass of 3.87×10 6th kg Bažant had used in earlier papers. The former floor mass is representative of the concrete floor slab only, whereas the latter floor mass includes all the other materials on the floor. Correcting this alone increases the conservation-of-momentum velocity loss by more than 6 times, to a value of 7.1%. Additionally, the column energy dissipation has been shown to be far more significant than Bažant claimed. Researchers have since provided calculations showing that a natural collapse over one story would not only decelerate, but would actually arrest after one or two stories of fall (see Fig. 4) [2, 10]……’
Yeah I’ve read Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis by Gregory Szuladzi Anthony Szambotinski and Richard Johns, in which those criticisms were made. They’re criticising Bažant’s “crush-down-then-crush-up” model.
What can I say? They found a very elaborate way of shooting fish in a barrel. You only have to look at the videos and the debris to see that “crush-down-then-crush-up” is wrong.
Don’t even bother defending the “missing jolt” argument. Any conceivable use of explosives would have produced even bigger jolts! The arguments have got a long way from reality, on both sides.
According to their website 2,836 so still some way short of 3,000.
It’s taken them 11 years to get that far and they’ve added just 536 names since 2014. Hardly taking the profession by storm is it?
To put it into perspective there are 227,000 registered architects in the us, about 3.6 million world wide. The number who have signed the petition are insignificant.
@ Clark March 29, 2017 at 14:42
‘Architects and structural engineers absolutely SHOULD lose their jobs if, for instance, they accept Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” argument, or if they deny that the Twin Towers could have undergone progressive collapse. It’s important that architects and structural engineers are COMPETENT, because the safety of buildings does actually matter.’
So how come they keep joining A&E? Are you suggesting they are all masochists?
And how come so many of them have served for years in their professions, and no one has noticed their pathetic inadequacies?
I told you before; are you going to ignore me again? You need to look into how many are primarily concerned about Building 7.
@ Clark March 29, 2017 at 16:02
Sure they are, because from their point of view WTC 7 is the weakest link in the government’s ‘narrative’.
And they are doing a mighty fine job getting their message out, and new recruits help to prove their good judgement.
For ‘Pilots’, the Pentagon is the weakest link. It only needs one major breakthrough on big issues like these, and the whole government narrative starts to unravel like the treacherous baloney it is.
– “It only needs one major breakthrough on big issues like these, and the whole government narrative starts to unravel like the treacherous baloney it is”
Don’t be so sure of that. The propagandists are top professionals. They know full well that the most effective propaganda is based on emotional appeal, omission and minimal distortion. One important principle which I expect to have been considered is “graceful degradation”, ie. don’t build your system to be globally vulnerable to single-point failures.
Twin Tower demolition theory has immense emotional appeal to a specific minority, but hardly any substance, which is why I expect it has been amplified. Building 7 hardly figures in the official narrative at all.
” It only needs one major breakthrough on big issues like these ”
We’re still waiting; and will be for a long, long time to come.
See, the “official explanations” might be wrong (as I believe), but anyone with a bit of physics nous can see that the Twin Towers could have collapsed as recorded. Engineers don’t care much for “official explanations” anyway; so long as something doesn’t defy physical law, who cares what governments say? Governments rarely make much sense in any case, and often ignore engineers on behalf of the Treasury.
Building 7, on the other hand, requires complicated mental gymnastics to imagine how it could have fallen like that.
@ Clark March 29, 2017 at 16:12
‘…Building 7, on the other hand, requires complicated mental gymnastics to imagine how it could have fallen like that.’
‘..complicated mental gymnastics..’ seem to be your forte; you brush off the iron micro-spheres, found in all the tested dust samples, which are typical of thermite (thermate/nano-thermate), and of which there is no alternative explanation of their presence to date. Jet fuel and office furnishings cannot burn hot enough to melt steel (except in a blast furnace, which the WTC’s were not), never mind shoot out billions of micro-spheres.
And the pools and streams of molten steel or iron witnessed by many cleanup and First Responders mean nothing to you; they must have been mistaken, or confused, like Barry Jennings (RIP).
I dismiss Twin Tower demolition theory because I can watch the collapses captured on video, and they are consistent with progressive collapse, but inconsistent with any kind of chemical cutting.
I went looking for evidence of “pools of molten steel” and found evidence only of trickles. Iron microspheres have various problems including multiple other possible sources.
But I’m not like you. I don’t automatically trust the opposition, and even if I did, I wouldn’t trust their informational environment. Twin Tower demolition theory has been the biggest single impediment to getting 9/11 issues taken seriously. That may or may not be coincidental.
– “…except in a blast furnace, which the WTC’s were not”
That’s something I’ve wondered about. The core of WTC1 seemed to fail before the perimeter did (the antenna started to fall first; another NIST omission). Could convection-driven updraughts in the core lift-shafts have driven localised higher temperature combustion?
It still wouldn’t explain iron microspheres, but there were plenty of welds in the WTC prefabricated steel members.
@ Clark March 29, 2017 at 16:12
‘…and often ignore engineers on behalf of the Treasury….’
Interesting. Any examples you can think of?
Space Shuttle Challenger springs to mind. In the UK, Train Protection System or whatever it was called. The total disregard for all UK working groups on the design of nuclear reactors. The US government’s disregard for Alvin Weinberg, who said the Pressurised Water Reactor (his own design) was not safe enough for civilian use. In other fields, the UK government’s contempt for professor Nutt and his assessment of the relative safety of recreational drugs. Those are just off the top of my head.
@ Clark March 29, 2017 at 17:14
Yes, good points. In the Challenger, nuclear reactors and relative safety of recreational drugs, these were all government led issues, which they pushed no matter what the consequences; just the same as research indicating the dangers of GMO’s, herbicides and pesticides are ignored due to Corporation bribery.
But what would have been the driving force for underfunding the iconic WTC Towers, which were the highest buildings in the world when built? If they were as weak as you seem to think, they could have been blown over in hurricanes, and then where would US prestige have been? ‘Gerry-builders’, the world would have scoffed.
No, they were well over-built, with enormous built-in capacity for limited failures to be catered for by the interconnections and over specifications. The ‘gerry-built’ story is just another of what the CIA guy exlained (in a recent post) of ‘red herring’ narratives, to confuse the public and investigators, as possible ‘limited hangouts’.
The Twin Towers were a clever design, but you only have to look at it to see how cheap it was. No structural cross-members outside the core, higher-tensile steel so that 40% less steel could be used overall.
“Over-built” they definitely were not. They were just the cheapest way of piling the maximum number of wage-slaves onto the smallest footprint of highest rent real-estate in the world.
The design of the Twin Towers was only approved because the Port Authority was immune to city and state building codes. Some components only had a two-hour fire rating; full evacuation was known to take about three and a half hours.
That’s why the compensation was settled out-of-court. Those responsible for the buildings wanted to blame airport security, and vice-versa. Negative publicity from that potential battle was presumably calculated to be more expensive than sharing the costs of compensation.
Oh, it goes back ages. Brunel versus Stephenson over railway gauge. The government chose the cheaper system, of course.
…and utter government disregard of the dangers of global warming, until the Stern Review phrased them in terms of monetary costs.
Clark
In light of your recent posts I would be interested to know what guiding principles you follow.
Could you set them out, for us?
[I dare say that other contributors would be willing.]
Truth, Justice , Peace.
Similarly, refer to Spycatcher for the contempt of MI5 Oxford humanities graduates to the introduction of a scientist into their ranks. That’s changed now, mind. Oh, the treatment of Alan Turing and Frank Whittle…
It’s a recurrent theme. Politics is primarily about bullshit. You can’t bullshit reality.
Clark
Most of us believe in Truth, Justice and Peace.
Do you have a broader, more detailed, philosophy?
Dunno, really; it’s complicated. My voyage of personal discovery probably started with Persig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I know that there is far more to anything than I will ever be capable of knowing. I always try to remember my own limitations, and that I cannot be fully aware of my own biases; consequently, I try to give thorough consideration to arguments that do not appeal to me. The test of everything is reality, and not my beliefs and opinions. My model of the world is merely that – just a model, and the map is not the territory.
Thanks for asking. I’m off to Meditation Group, so bye for now 🙂
@ Clark March 29, 2017 at 18:39
‘Truth, Justice , Peace.’
Noble sentiments indeed. But the first casualty of war is said to be the truth, and obviously justice and peace automatically fall by the wayside, to be trampled by jackboots, drowned in blood and blown to smithereens by artillery, cruise missiles, bombs and drones.
I cannot think of a war or armed intervention involving Britain in the 20th or 21st centuries which was not precipitated by lies, and by Banksters and Big Business making bundles.
You seem so focused on attacking ‘conspiracy theories’; why give the governments, who initiate these illegal, totally immoral wars of aggression and regime change, the benefit of the doubt? Why not the people who question the governments’ narratives and patent lies? Poor old OBL (RIP), a man who I believe genuinely thought he was fighting the ‘good fight’ against the Soviets, and whose bravery and dedication cannot reasonably be contested, believed the CIA were genuinely interested in the cause of getting the Soviets out (they were, but their main reason was to ‘bleed’ the Soviet Union, having created the Mujaheddin BEFORE the Soviets invaded, and sent them in to topple the government (another case of ‘regime change’, with the intent to bring in the Soviets, where they would be immersed in a Vietnam-style conflict – I very much doubt OBL knew that part of the plot)).
He was also honest, and mere days after 9/11 gave information to al-Jazeera and two Pakistani newspapers that he had had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. But Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell got on the phones to the MSM and told them not to report OBL’s denial, in case it had a coded message to his agents. I’m sure the same was true across the Western world; anyhow, it wasn’t reported.
Again, poor old OBL; he unwittingly furthered the massive carnage of Muslim countries that has occurred since 9/11, by falling for the CIA’s dirty schemes. He could have been living the high-life with his millions, but chose instead to fight for his brother Muslims, and then to get blamed by the CIA for 9/11.
Paul, yes, I knew of Osama bin Laden’s denial, and the manipulative claim that it contained a coded message. Rice and Powell was it? Sounds familiar. This is not a false meme; it is documented. Rice signed off the torture policy:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/04/condoleeza_rice/
Osama bin Laden was used, abused and apparently murdered to get Obama re-elected. Not only was it unconscionable, it was beyond irresponsible in the US government’s own terms; if he was what they said he was, he should have been tried and his testimony become public record. Obviously, he was silenced.
I wonder what happened to his wives. I saw video of them in custody in Pakistan, and then heard no more. I also wonder what deal was done with the bin Laden family.
– “You seem so focused on attacking ‘conspiracy theories’; why give the governments, who initiate these illegal, totally immoral wars of aggression and regime change, the benefit of the doubt?”
Because it’s TRUTH, Justice, Peace. Truth isn’t optional. It’s the first requirement; the others cannot follow without it. You cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
And because untruth plays into the deceivers’ hands. With much better access to mass media, they can always sway more minds with your untruth than you can with theirs. Every time an accusation proves out false, they can hold up their hands with an expression of innocence and say “see? They’re just silly conspiracy theories”. You can try playing similar tricks, but they’ll always reach more people than you, so you need a better record for accuracy and honesty than they have.
@ Clark March 30, 2017 at 00:55
Surely you don’t believe that business about OBL being assassinated by a SEAL group in Pakistan? The scam was done for political reasons, but OBL was long dead – any videos or tapes claimed to be from OBL after December 2001 were fakes. But they kept the myth of him being alive for ‘bogey man’ reasons, and so they could ‘find him and kill him’ at a suitably beneficial time, such as before elections. George W Bush was going to be the beneficiary of the killing, but something went wrong, so the scam was temporarily postponed. I’m not going to chase after Bhutto’s interview or what went wrong so Bush couldn’t claim crdit for ‘killing’ the long-dead OBL links, but they do exist.
Most Truthers believe OBL died in December 2001 of kidney problems (he was on dialysis);some believe he was murdered in December 2001.
Even Pakistan’s Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said in a videoed interview that OBL died in 2001.
‘… so you need a better record for accuracy and honesty than they have.’
I already have that; it’s a pity you see a genuine mistake over two women of the same name as deliberate.
” Most Truthers believe OBL died in December 2001 ”
Truthers believe a lot of things.
– “…Pakistan’s Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said in a videoed interview that OBL died in 2001”
She just said the wrong name; she meant Daniel Pearl. If you bothered reading my comments instead of being so focussed on constructing a fictitious version of events, you’d know that:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-105/#comment-655868
– “I already have that”
Not with me you don’t (sorry, but I feel I should be honest), and there are countless millions like me. To me, you seem to seize upon any little detail, isolate it from its context, and use it as a mosaic piece in a false history that you try to promote. Many others do the same which is why such behaviour has been given a name; it’s called “conspiracy theorising”.
She just said the wrong name; she meant Daniel Pearl.
Daniel PearlOmar Sheikh“…Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered
Osama bin LadenDaniel Pearl”No?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IIn_UnLO9I
– “it’s a pity you see a genuine mistake over two women of the same name as deliberate”
I’m not sure what you mean here, but I assume you’re referring to Osama bin Laden’s wives. I’ve read nothing about this. I just saw a video clip of women in Pakisatan after the shooting (allegedly of Osama), and a voice-over referred to them as Osama’s wives.
@ Clark March 30, 2017 at 12:14
No, I was referring to the Greer’s and Robert Stinnett’s book on Pearl Harbour.
Ah yes, of course. So. You didn’t know, didn’t bother checking, didn’t bother comparing the careers of the critic and the actress, but asserted as fact they were the same person. Challenged, you then reverse ferreted by degrees with “The ‘actress’ was also an author; I still don’t know if it is the same person; perhaps not. I did try to ascertain if it was the same Greer”.
And as ever, your ‘mistakes’ somehow always align to support your agenda, which is why people like me will remain very sceptical of any assertion you make.
The US broke their own (claimed) moral code in murdering Osama bin Laden. In stark contrast, Osama bin Laden became more devout. He saw the hypocrisy of the marriage of convenience between the house of Saud and the Wahabbist elite, and rejected it. He wanted US military presence out of the land he saw as holy.
I have much of the past few years being condescended to for my naivety and credulity and belief in ‘conspiracy theories’ by the official narrative huggers. But the story of Osama bin Laden’s funeral is an astonishing example of just how naive, credulous and trusting of authority the official narrative huggers are. The story is simply preposterous.
According to documents released by the Pentagon in response to FOI requests his body was taken to the USS Carl Vinson where it underwent burial in keeping with Islamic tradition.
Huh? You really believe the US, having allowed the lynching of Saddam Hussein and bayonet up the arse murder of Ghaddafi, would take the man they allege masterminded the greatest terrorist attack on US soil in history and give him a nice formal burial?
How long did this touching ceremony last ? Around 50 minutes, and it took place at noon local time. How many sailors of the ship’s 3,000 odd complement saw it? Not one.
Are you really asking me to believe you can hold a funeral for 50 minutes on the deck of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and no one sees it? Don’t they have some sort of super sophisticated look-out system to defend themselves against boarding parties disguised as Islamic funerals?
And yet the mainstream media simply report it without even stopping to question how daft it is.
The Pentagon admits ‘it cannot find’ any videos, photos, autopsy reports or DNA test to establish identity. So they spent 50 minutes burying the guy and no one took a picture.
The following year they released details of OBL’s book shelf and my! how the gullible fools billed and cooed in wonder.
It was a veritable who’s who of conspiracist thinkers.
Michel Chossudovsky, Chomsky, William Blum, Greg Palast, Anthony Sutton, Fritz Springmeier on the Illuminati, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert and numerous other 9/11 Truth books, David Ray Griffin, stuff on MK Ultra, stuff on the Federal Reserve…I could go on.
You could hear them laughing all the way from Langley Virginia.
It’s just total bollocks.
If he really was living there undetected for years, don’t show me his made up book shelf, show me the dialysis machine without which he would have been dead in days.
Oops.
@ KingofWelshNoir March 30, 2017 at 08:26
I think they may have inadvertently included my bookshelf by mistake…
Still, it could be they shot themselves in the foot, if any real Jihadis read what their hero supposedly read.
Not just books, but ‘ominously, the compound contained a guide to the American special forces video game Delta Force Extreme 2.’ Ha ha.
Read the whole list and laugh, you can just feel the glee they had making it up. Surprised there is nothing by Alex Jones
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32816412
Oh the mass “news” media have almost completely abdicated their responsibility, and merely regurgitated the propaganda presumably crafted by some PR company contracted to some US government agency. The fact is that we don’t know what happened to Osama bin Laden.
But that doesn’t relieve YOU of responsibility, KingofWelshNoir:
– “I have much of the past few years being condescended to for my naivety and credulity and belief in ‘conspiracy theories’ by the official narrative huggers”
This is binary thinking, “accept the official narrative, or swallow the entire Truther rubric hook, line and sinker”. The world is not some story you wrote. It is not only more complex than you imagine, it is more complex than any of us are capable of imagining. Just because official sources include deliberate deception does not imply that there is no “conspiracy theorist” mindset.
There is no one out there to solve such matters for us. All we have is our own proficiency (or lack thereof) to think and communicate honestly and critically. You may feel that if enough people push the issues hard enough, the “official story” will collapse and “the Truth” will somehow magically gush into the space vacated, deus ex machina. Wrong. Like all scientific and logical understanding it will have to be reconstructed from evidence, fact by painstaking fact.
@ Clark March 30, 2017 at 12:39
So you gloss over your previous acceptance of the ‘Official Version’, and go on the offensive (without explaining why you didn’t exact the same ‘truth proof’ you seem intent on doing to us {‘us’ being Truth Seekers} on the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’.
No, no one has all the answers (at least among us); but the ‘Official Narrative’ has already collapsed, perhaps not at free fall speed for most of us (but some folks who know something about the issues smelt a rat immediately).
Some folks are a wee bit slow on the uptake, as they say (unless there is some more sinister business going on, which I certainly cannot discount).
I support certain parts of a certain report. That’s “supporting the official version”, is it? So you’re saying that I must contradict every individual detail of everything referred to in every official report, or I’m “supporting the official version”, right? Well, Paul, that’s how “conspiracy theorists” think, which is why I call you one. No one else will, because they’re “conspiracy theorists”, too, all of whom informally conspire never to contradict one another.
Of course YOU support certain parts of certain reports, too. For instance, you support the part of NIST’s report that says that Building 7 descended at around free-fall for 2.25 seconds, but of course you’re incapable of seeing your own hypocrisy because you’re a “conspiracy theorist”.
Yes, my position changes as I learn. That shows that I’m seeking truth. The thought that you might be a truth-seeker is laughable. “Conspiracy theorists” don’t attempt to seek the truth; they quote-mine, seize upon a few particular facts, strip them of their context, exaggerate them, and build them into a “conspiracy theory”.
And then, to top it all off, they make innuendos that anyone calling them out is an agent of the conspiracy, like this:
– “Some folks are a wee bit slow on the uptake, as they say (unless there is some more sinister business going on, which I certainly cannot discount)”
Bullshit, Justice, Peace? Yeah, right!
And soon there will be 1,000 lawyers calling for an inquiry into what most rational people know ought to be questioned – the official narrative on 9/11.
https://www.facebook.com/lawyerscommitteefor911inquiry/
‘9/11 Free Fall Radio: Gage, Barnum, and Walter: This Year’s AIA WTC 7 Resolution’:
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=2be69279cd&e=%5BUNIQID%5D
Some folks put their money where there mouth is.
Yes I’d like 9/11 properly investigated, too. I think the best way to promote that is to do it ourselves as best we can, and that creating and promoting false leads is counter-productive, like throwing chaff in front of our own radar.
Yes a thorough investigation ought to lay the conspiracy theories to rest but of course it would be a complete waste of time because the Truthers would just whine on about it being cover up as per usual.
– “…it would be a complete waste of time because the Truthers would just whine on about it being cover up as per usual”
They would, but it would only be a “complete waste of time” for those whose only objective is to silence the Truthers. Even full disclosure of the official narrative would have profound implications for the US/neocon covert policy of destabilising and overthrowing Middle Eastern countries by sponsoring and exploiting religious indoctrination of extremism. And at least some of the “conspiracy theories” would be confirmed as conspiracy fact to some extent, though I doubt that any nails happen to have been hit squarely on the head.
A good start would be general public awareness that about 60% of the 9/11 “official narrative” is based on confessions extracted under torture and therefore utterly unreliable.
Some thoughts about the phrase ‘Conspiracy Theory’.
1. It is only applied to suspicion of elite criminality. If you suspect two postmen of plotting to rob a bank you are not called a conspiracy theorist. The police investigate such conspiracies every day but they are not conspiracy theorists because the conspiracies they investigate – usually poor people robbing rich people – do not threaten the sacred lies we all took in with our mother’s milk about how benign our leaders are.
If you air a suspicion of criminal behaviour by our leaders, however, people don’t like it and leap to their defence by using the conspiracy theory label which contains within it the suggestion that you are engaging in irrational behaviour. It is, in fact, a disguised ad hominem.
2. It is always used to assert a priori that the suspicion is false. After all, you never hear anyone say, ‘Oh yes, I believe that, it’s a conspiracy theory.’
3. The criminal behaviour to which the phrase refers—and thus denounced a priori as false—has hs usually happened numerous times before.
So when you suggest that some event might be a false flag designed to lead a country to war you will be denounced as a conspiracy theorist, and therefore irrational, even though such things have happened many times before and, given the stakes, it is entirely rational to wonder if they are happening again.
4. The creation of this group called Conspiracy theorists presupposes that there is a group of non-conspiracy theorists who regard their views as correct and the conspiracist mindset as an irrational deviation. But whence comes their authority to claim this? From the greater numbers in their group of course.
5. People have a very powerful urge to believe what the majority believe, and also what authority tells them. In my view many people will disbelieve the evidence of their senses rather than disbelieve what they are told by authority.
6. Throughout the ages people have routinely believed nonsense – such as the fact that a witch will float if she is guilty and sink if innocent – so the fact that the majority believe something is no guarantee that it is true.
7. The purveyors of conspiracy theory are frequently mocked and ridiculed. Throughout history this has been the routine fate of any one who challenges the consensus trance, deviates from the group think or has the courage to see things differently and say so. The mockery is a defence mechanism that is used to protect the prevailing belief system against assault.
Yes, the term “conspiracy theory” is abused as a propaganda tool, as is “anti-Semitism”. But to argue that “anti-Semitism” therefore has no legitimate use leads to Holocaust denial.
To address some of your points;
– “1. It is only applied to suspicion of elite criminality”
“Conspiracy theorists” only accuse some ill-defined, but elite, entity. Only some nearly omnipotent entity would be capable of performing the alleged feats.
– “2. It is always used to assert a priori that the suspicion is false”
That’s not how I’ve been using it on this thread. I’ve been quite clear that I’m referring to systematic abuse of information for fabrication of a false case, and I’ve seen many, many instances of it on this thread alone. Police officers frequently do it too; although they don’t get called “conspiracy theorists”, I expect it’s the same human tendency in action.
– “4. The creation of this group called Conspiracy theorists presupposes that there is a group of non-conspiracy theorists who regard their views as correct…”
No. Regarding the fair usage of “conspiracy theorist”, this is entirely back-to-front. Rational investigators acknowledge that they do not know the answers, and that any theory is provisional. Those actually conspiracy-theorising have already decided upon the answer, and thus feel justified in misrepresenting evidence to others.
Example: BB18 mains electricity distribution components were misrepresented as “special fuses used in remote controlled demolition”. The accuser refused to cite the source, and when challenged, insisted that the word “fuses” was used innocently to refer to a safety component, not deceptively to suggest a detonator.
Example: Benatir Bhutto was cited as having referred to the “murder” of Osama bin Laden, yet clear evidence that she simply misspoke had already been presented.
Conspiracy theorists rarely acknowledge such challenges, preferring to feign ignorance so they can present them again and again. After all, someone might believe, and the end justifies the means, right? Because the conspiracy theorists feels superior to those they think of as “sheeple”.
– “5. People have a very powerful urge to believe what the majority believe…”
This is over-simplified. Many, probably most people have tendencies both to accept a group belief, and to enforce and promote it, but joining the group is usually a choice. I know this first-hand, having been indoctrinated as a Jehovah’s Witless in childhood; all the Witlesses believed, but constituted about 0.05% of the population. Likewise, perception of what constitutes authority is local rather than universal; in the Milgram experiment, “the Experimenter” simply took the authoritative role, and wasn’t supposedly a police officer or claiming any authority from government.
A visitor has arrived; more later…
I tend to be uncomfortable about conspiracy theories.But that does not mean that I think they can be dismissed.
To take two examples: The destruction of the WTC towers: i refrain from commenting on this because i don’t have the technical skills. I tend to the view that a grand conspiracy,by shadowy figures in the US/Israel or elsewhere is highly unlikely. However I also think( and most people would agree) that a great deal that is important in understanding such events, is kept hidden, and that this is conspired at by groups of people- because it would be damaging to their position if it was known.
It is the near certainty that this is the case that fosters the desire to learn more, combined with a great sense of the injustice which is associated with these events.
I also think that there are people who would adopt the position of ridiculing conspiracy because they have some knowledge of a (real) conspiracy, as well as people who are simply frustrated by the obsessive and desperate quality that some seekers after truth bring to their searches. However it is arguable that only that obsessive sifting is al that will eventually reveal the hidden elements of the story.
Other ‘conspiracies’? The killing of OBL? While I would not want to speculate about it being a ‘politically motivated conspiracy’ it seems to me perfectly clear that there are hidden elements of this story, as reported. It seems highly unlikely that the assassination was not carried out without some
element of ‘conspiracy’ in the sense, that had the intention been to seek out truth, it would have been preferable to kept him alive. I have not the slightest shadow of a doubt that a decision was made in advance, by numerous individuals, up to and including the US president, to make sure that the person in the house who appeared to be OBL was emphatically killed. Whether the broad outlines of the ‘story’ are true or false, there are always elements of connivance and conspiracy-and in any event it is always in the interests of the conspirators to leave these matters unanswerable.
“I tend to the view that a grand conspiracy,by shadowy figures in the US/Israel or elsewhere is highly unlikely.”
Why so, DGP?
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/
@ Clark March 31, 2017 at 14:05
‘“Conspiracy theorists” only accuse some ill-defined, but elite, entity. Only some nearly omnipotent entity would be capable of performing the alleged feats.’
That implies it is virtually impossible for a ‘conspiracy theory’ to be true. So how come so many so-called ‘conspircy theories’ have been found to be correct? (like JFK – a later Congressional investigation found it was not just a one man killing, but didn’t go further than that – a lot of very informed people died shortly before testifying in that later investigation – ‘ Belzer & Wayne’s ‘Hit List’).
And the USS Liberty: Hounam comes up with testimony of actual radio intercepts of the Israeli pilots and their base controllers showing the Israelis knew very well it was an American ship.
And the Lusitania; evidence was found proving the fact it was carrying ammunition and explosives. Later attempts were made to destroy any evidence by saturating the sunken ship with hedgehog anti-submarine munitions.
‘Example: BB18 mains electricity distribution components were misrepresented as “special fuses used in remote controlled demolition”. The accuser refused to cite the source, and when challenged, insisted that the word “fuses” was used innocently to refer to a safety component, not deceptively to suggest a detonator.’
I don’t believe I or anyone else has suggested that controlled demolition is the ONLY use for such fuse boxes, but as the following description from ‘Littlefuse’ shows, they would certainly assist in cutting the set-up time for multiple detonations to be coordinated. I do not remember where this issue was raised in 9/11 Truther circles, so cannot give any further links:
‘BB18 – POWR Busbar Series
http://www.littelfuse.com/products/fuse-blocks-fuseholders-and-fuse-accessories/dead-front-fuse-holders/powr-busbar/bb18.aspx
‘Safe distribution of power to multiple fuse holders in a compact design is a key objective for panel designers. The Littelfuse UL508 bus bar system eliminates most wire terminations in a time saving package. A power distribution block and associated conductors are no longer needed to feed multiple POWR-SAFE™ fuse holders.
‘Features/Benefits:
Decreases wiring terminations
Small footprint reduces space requirements
Reduces assembly time
Prevents accidental finger exposure
Quick and safe method of changing fuse holder configurations
Allows for future expansion
Improves troubleshooting
Eliminates power distribution block
RoHS compliant and lead (Pb) free…’
‘Example: Benatir Bhutto was cited as having referred to the “murder” of Osama bin Laden, yet clear evidence that she simply misspoke had already been presented…’
‘http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Benatir+Bhutto%3a+Osama+bin+Laden+was+murdered&view=detail&mid=32782ECA404168DCBE3032782ECA404168DCBE30&FORM=VIRE
Bit difficult for that to be ‘misspoken’; Benazir Bhutto was a very intelligent woman and fluent in English.
But of course, there were many indeed who would try to diminish the effect of that information by trying to dismiss it as a ‘mistake’ (incidentally, I and many others believed OBL had simply died through kidney problems, but Bhutto was much nearer the action and had very good information sources – not, unfortunately, good enough to have penetrated the later, successful assassination).
If you have ‘evidence’ Bhutto lied, or ‘misspoke’, please link to it.
Although Benazir Bhutto was smart, unfortunately she had not apparently sussed the covert CIA backing of most of the mayhem, and asked for Scotland Yard or the FBI to come in and use their forensic skills to find out who had committed an atrocity that killed 150 innocent people:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=benazir+bhutto+osama+bin+laden+was+murdered&qpvt=benazir+bhutto+osama+bin+laden+was+murdered&view=detail&mid=0FE7C0D4A729837BFD4C0FE7C0D4A729837BFD4C&FORM=VRDGAR
– “That implies it is virtually impossible for a ‘conspiracy theory’ to be true. So how come so many so-called ‘conspircy theories’ have been found to be correct?”
Because the term has developed two meanings, just like “anti-Semitism” and “hacker” have. And yes, each case is partly deliberate, but we have to live with it.
– – – – –
Controlled demolition is NOT an application for BB18 components, and those components have absolutely nothing to do with radio control of anything; there would be huge great mains cables snaking all over the place, or tiny thin wires coming out of comically enormous boxes. These components merely simplify installation of mains electricity systems by combining functions previously performed by two different types of unit.
In Truther circles, BB18 is the part number printed on many cardboard boxes used to make a “club house” in the Twin Towers by performance art group Gelitin, accused by some Truthers (which is contradicted, of course, by no Truthers) of rigging the Twin Towers for demolition. “Lies, Justice, Peace”.
– – – – –
Bhutto didn’t lie, it was merely a slip of the tongue. I’ll link to the evidence YET AGAIN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IIn_UnLO9I
At 2:07 and onwards, “it is clear that Benazir Bhutto didn’t think Osama bin Laden was dead because Bhutto talked about bin Laden in the context of him being alive before and after this Nov 2 David Frost interview”, and then those instances are provided.
I’ve provided this very substantial evidence OVER AND OVER AGAIN, and you’ve REPEATEDLY ignored it, and then of course you come out with “of course, there were many indeed who would try to diminish the effect of that information by trying to dismiss it as a ‘mistake’” – do Bhutto’s other statements prove that she’s a part-time member of a conspiracy AGAINST HERSELF? – Or is it more likely that YOU are a paranoid CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
Put your damn house in order, Paul.
@ Clark March 31, 2017 at 22:35
‘…I’ve provided this very substantial evidence OVER AND OVER AGAIN, and you’ve REPEATEDLY ignored it, and then of course you come out with “of course, there were many indeed who would try to diminish the effect of that information by trying to dismiss it as a ‘mistake’” – do Bhutto’s other statements prove that she’s a part-time member of a conspiracy AGAINST HERSELF? – Or is it more likely that YOU are a paranoid CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
Put your damn house in order, Paul.’
There you go again, getting your knickers in a twist! Do try to be a tad more civil, Drama Boy!
I’ve checked the link, and it does seem you are right, about Bhutto talking about OBL being still alive.
That does not, however, convince me that OBL did not die in December 2001, of kidney problems.
Benazir Bhutto’s interview brought that into question, but I accepted it assuming she knew more than us; I accept now that she must have made a mistake saying he was murdered in 2001, and after speaking of him still being alive later.
You could have made your point without the venom, and I would still have accepted it.
Here are two more sites, claiming his death in 2001, with multiple links:
‘OSAMA BIN LADEN DIED IN 2001!!!’: http://ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php/911-a-false-flag-operations/the-911-event/500-osama-bin-laden-died-in-20018
‘Proof that Osama bin Laden Was CIA and Died in 2001 — Bush – Laden – CIA Connections’:
http://humansarefree.com/2011/05/proof-that-osama-bin-laden-was-cia-and.html
Oops, I replied in the wrong place:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-108/#comment-665014
Very true KoWN. Chomsky in his denunciation of any who hold a view in contravention of the official view uses this “conspiracy theorists” put-down with no real argument against. He says he has no view himself, and not the knowledge to hold a view, but still tries to demean the academics who do.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-108/#comment-664970
Good to see you supporting the right-wing efforts to discredit Noam Chomsky, John. Really noble. They go after Julian Assange, Amy Goodman and Michio Kaku, too.
Chomsky’s important lectures are frequently interrupted by misguided Truthers; multiple instances have been posted to YouTube. It’s admirable that he manages to remain so polite.
@ Clark March 31, 2017 at 22:44
‘… It’s admirable that he manages to remain so polite…’
He hasn’t, actually; he has slagged off Truthers just because of his real or feigned belief that the government couldn’t have got away with such a plot.
Hardly admirable that such an intelligent and feted ‘star’ of the (fake) ‘Left’ does not investigate the issue of 9/11, instead of dismissing it out of hand; nor is it admirable when asked in Hungary about the JFK assassination, part of his short answer was ‘Who cares?’
@ John Goss March 31, 2017 at 21:12
Coincidentally, this came out recently, and I have just became aware of it:
‘Noam Chomsky: Trump could stage a ‘false flag’ terror attack and ‘change the country instantly’’:
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/noam-chomsky-trump-could-stage-a-false-flag-terror-attack-and-change-the-country-instantly/
‘…“I think that we shouldn’t put aside the possibility that there would be some kind of staged or alleged terrorist act, which can change the country instantly,” Chomsky said.
Chomsky — who has called Trump a “con man” who will drag civilization “down to the utter depths of barbarism” — also said that much of the world is amused at the outrage many Americans feel about Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
“I mean whatever the Russians may have been doing, let’s take the most extreme charges, that barely registers in the balance against what the U.S. does constantly,” he said. “Even in Russia. So for example, the U.S. intervened radically to support [Boris] Yeltsin in 1991 when he was engaged in a power play trying to take power from the Parliament, Clinton strongly supported him. In 1996, when Yeltsin was running, the Clinton administration openly and strongly supported them, and not only verbally, but with tactics and loans and so on.”…’
So he’s not as naive as he makes out to be, with his denunciation of 9/11 Truthers. He is fully aware that this stuff goes on at the highest levels, and for the highest stakes.
Also suspicious is the fact that he has torn apart USG foreign policies, but seems to have suffered no major attacks from the MSM or the MIT (as 9/11 Truthers certainly would have been), despite MIT having lucrative government contracts. The government could easily have brought massive pressure on MIT to get shot of such a ‘turbulent priest’, had he not been useful to them.
The corporate media ignore Chomsky as much as they can. They’d rather no one heard of him. They certainly wouldn’t mention any of his criticisms of foreign policy because they’d rather no one heard of them. They’d stand no chance of defeating Chomsky’s evidence and analysis, so they just keep quiet about it.
The US government do the same, for the same reasons. Don’t flatter yourself that it’s anything to do with Trutherism. No one is scared of demolition theory because the Twin Towers weren’t pre-rigged for demolition.
To continue from where I left off:
– “6. …the fact that the majority believe something is no guarantee that it is true”
True, but precisely the same argument applies when a minority all agree about some specific thing, for instance Jehovah’s Witlessism or Twin Tower demolition theory.
– “7. The purveyors of conspiracy theory are frequently mocked and ridiculed”
Well of course they are, but not so much by those in “the consensus trance” who mostly care enough, but by critical thinkers who, for their efforts, keep being accused of being agents of the conspiracy. The things that are so exasperating about conspiracy theorists (and also Jehovah’s Witlesses and other deluded zealots) is their sense of self-superiority, and their partisan treatment of facts and logic.
In the immortal words of Jake Thackray; “I don’t mind people acting like idiots so long as they don’t mind me taking the piss out of them”. But actually, the world is in such dire need of Truth, Justice, Peace that I DO mind people acting like idiots. So far as I know I don’t have any children, but I want humanity to have a future.