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).
“The graph shows a tightly connected cluster of alternative media domains —suggesting that many users are citing multiple alternative news sites as they construct alternative narratives. Within that cluster, the three most-highly tweeted and most connected domains are No-Disinfo, VeteransToday and BeforeItsNews. NoDisinfo is a site devoted to providing alternative narratives of terrorist events where the primary suspect is affiliated with an Islamic terror group. VeteransToday is an alternative news site that promotes a U.S. Alt Right, anti-globalist political agenda, including strong anti Semitic themes. BeforeIts-News acts as an aggregator of many conspiracy theory and pseudo-science articles from other sites. These three sites may have different motivations and goals, but they all promote alternative narratives of mass shooting events, and many of these narratives have very similar elements.”
http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/Alt_Narratives_ICWSM17-CameraReady.pdf
Thanks, that’s an interesting article, and has led to to some good sites that check news sites for bias and distortion.
On many issues I like what Noam Chomsky has to say. He often makes a well-argued factual case for his beliefs. On 9/11 though, unwittingly or not, he is a government gatekeeper, and sadly I think Craig is too. This article attempts, rather successfully, to show the error of Chomsky’s ways.
“He next makes the unforgivably false statement, “Anyone who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount the [supposed] evidence [presented by those who reject the official story].” This statement insults members of professional groups such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (A&E911Truth), Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth and other thinking people in the 9/11 truth movement. He does not specify the evidence he alludes to but, rather bizarrely, refutes this unspecified evidence with the argument that, in life, there are plenty of coincidences that can’t be explained. There is only one word for this: nonsense.”
The whole article, including two videos of Chomsky’s expressing his beliefs, is well worth reading in full.
https://off-guardian.org/2016/10/11/analysis-of-the-sophistry-of-noam-chomsky-on-911/
https://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related-materials/9-11-images
In the last three pictures:
03.23.17 9-11 Pentagon Overhead 1
03.23.17 9-11 Pentagon Overhead 2
03.23.17 9-11 Pentagon Overhead
Am I seeing things, or is there no exit damage out of the ‘B’ ring?
?Lo’s pasando?
What is this about, Paul, and John?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39461005
@ Bobm March 31, 2017 at 23:02
On the fourth picture on the link you used, the aerial view, or on the three I linked to (one is the same as the one in your link), notice the major damage in the outside (A) ring, and the blackened area in the third (C) ring. Imagine a straight line between them, through the middle (B) ring – no damage at all! I am truly amazed at their showing such damning evidence!
Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems as plain as a pikestaff to me.
I’ve emailed this around, and haven’t had a response yet.
Obviously, if a ‘plane’ is supposed to have entered the ‘A’ ring and made an exit hole in the ‘C’ ring, it must have passed, in a straight line, through ‘B’ ring – yet no damage whatsoever – it’s pristine!
Paul, the explanation is in the first and third of the photos you listed. Either look more carefully, or ask me for a hint or an explanation.
@ Clark March 31, 2017 at 23:42
See my reply to Bobm.
There’s a two storey building between the B and C rings (count the rows of windows) so any damage would be obscured by it’s flat roof.
See my reply to Bobm. No, damage would not be obscured by the flat roof, unless your trying to suggest the ‘plane’ didn’t go through the building in a straight line. Think of a straight line between major damage in ‘A’ ring, in the direction the damage sugests, to the heavily blackened area in ‘C’ ring ‘(alleged’ exit hole. The roof does not mask the area that would have a hole in in ‘B’ ring. Easy peasy.
The section you’re looking for damage in is higher than the extent of the damage. The aircraft went under the roof between the two five-storey rings. Try counting the storeys on each ring.
As usual, Kempe is right. Paul, I even gave you a chance to correct your own error, but you preferred to think like a “conspiracy theorist”. Learn!
Yes, you and Kempe are right on this; Needless to say, I still maintain no airliner broke through three rings of the Pentagon.
Yes, you and Clark are right on this. Needless to say, I still maintain no airliner broke through three rings of the Pentagon.
And there may well be no damage beneath the roof, as the perps did not need to damage that part as it was not visible to outsiders.
Congrats! You’re right for a change!
Paul, thanks. I’d have omitted the venom if you’d taken notice on previous occasions. I get fed up with the way these false assertions just keep going round and round. It’s TRUTH, Justice, Peace. Node couldn’t accept it either, so cobbled the interpretation:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-107/#comment-664823
The comment before the one linked above was my direct reply to you. In case you just miss comments, try the Comment Feed page, linked at the top of this page, or on this link:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/feed/
Clark
I said earlier that the phrase conspiracy theory is
‘– is always used to assert a priori that the suspicion is false’
To which you replied:
‘That’s not how I’ve been using it on this thread.’
Really? Can you give me some examples then of conspiracy theories that you think could be true?
Thanks.
Crossed purposes, KoWN, orthogonal meanings. By “conspiracy theorist” I’m referring to a mindset; not directly related to the truth or falsity of any given assertion.
If you can’t recognise the mindset in others, that could be because you share it, which seems to blind people to its existence.
@ Clark April 1, 2017 at 11:08
Now I know where to come for psychotherapy (not).
>>By “conspiracy theorist” I’m referring to a mindset; not directly related to the truth or falsity of any given assertion.<>If you can’t recognise the mindset in others, that could be because you share it, which seems to blind people to its existence.<<
If the mindset you refer to is basically being intellectually dishonest, irrational and given to cherry picking evidence to support a case then I can very easily recognise it, because it is universal, one sees it everywhere. It is not confined to so-called conspiracy theorists. One can find many examples of conspiracy theorists – Peter Dale Scott, Anthony Sutton, David Ray Griffin, Pilots for 9/11 Truth et al whose work can not honestly be so dismissed.
Sorry, that got garbled in pasting.
“By “conspiracy theorist” I’m referring to a mindset; not directly related to the truth or falsity of any given assertion.”
I see. That means you are using a private definition of the well known phrase, whereas I was using it the way it is customarily used. All the same, will you humour me and give me some examples of conspiracy theories you think might well be true.
“If you can’t recognise the mindset in others, that could be because you share it, which seems to blind people to its existence.”
If the mindset you refer to is basically being intellectually dishonest, irrational and given to cherry picking evidence to support a case then I can very easily recognise it, because it is universal, one sees it everywhere. It is not confined to so-called conspiracy theorists. One can find many examples of conspiracy theorists – Peter Dale Scott, Anthony Sutton, David Ray Griffin, Pilots for 9/11 Truth et al whose work can not honestly be so dismissed.
Well, I’m not sure what has been labelled a conspiracy theory and what hasn’t. There was Jack Straw’s denial of the torture policy, proven true. I suspect that there were indeed hijackers on 9/11, and that some got their visas because the CIA demanded it, and some received training at US military facilities. Deliberate demolition of Building 7 seems in with a good chance of being true. That investigations into the alleged 9/11 hijackers were deliberately halted seems quite likely. The assassination of Kennedy looks suspect to me.
Here is a link to news of Bollyn’s next project.
http://www.bollyn.com/#article_15870
Reverting to the FBI’s re-release of the curious Pentagon photos (qv) we have still no explanation of its continued failure to release any CCTV footage, barring this notorious clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBasgFop40I
@ Bobm April 1, 2017 at 15:52
I’m sorry to have to admit, Clark and Kempe are right on this one. There ‘could’ be damage hidden by the lower roof; I had not noticed there was a lower roof between those rings. Then again, maybe there wasn’t any, since the PTB would have no reason to damage that part, as it couldn’t be seen from outside. I still know for sure no airliner could go through all those steel reinforced walls (total 7 1/2 ft of steel-reinforced concrete), break through all the interior steal columns, and then, with it’s fragile ‘nose’, punch a nice neat round hole through another foot and a half of steel-reinforced concrete.
Paul
I don’t know if they are right or wrong, but it certainly wasn’t the case that an airliner hit the Pentagon.
A grimly amusing feature of the official account involves the plane’s wing[s] clipping various light poles.
Aeroplane wings are designed to cope with lots of stresses;
but not with contact with massive steel objects.
The official story doesn’t stack up, on this ,and on multiple other matters.
@ Bobm April 1, 2017 at 17:41
They are right in that there is a roof which would cover up the exit hole in ‘B’ ring IF there was any.
Bollyn is good; I’m sure his coming book will awaken a lot of ‘Sheeple’.
Here is information about an ex-GI survivor of the Pentagon ‘attack’; she and her two-month old son (whom she had been ordered to take to the Pentagon whilst on the way to leave the child in care for the day whilst she worked; it was urgent, they said, she get to the Pentagon ASAP) were injured. She was at her computer some 40 feet from where the ‘alleged’ plane hit; she made her way through the hole with her child. She saw no evidence whatsoever of plane debris, nor of any fire in the Pentagon.
She says no alarm was sounded, even though the Pentagon had 20 minutes warning a plane was headed towards it, and they knew of the Twin Towers attacks already.
She tried, as per link following, to sue various government people, but did not cross the first hurdle, as the Judge assigned to the initial hearing was a relative of George W. Bush, and refused to recuse himself.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15787
She is an incredibly important and credible witness; she escaped through the hole made in the outer ring, caused allegedly by the airliner ploughing into the building, yet says there was no fire (born out by the fact that she was able to escape through the hole, and she saw no aircraft debris whatsoever. And she is a first-hand witness to the fact no alarm was sounded before the event, even though they knew an ‘alleged hijacked aircraft’ was heading directly towards the Pentagon.
It’s a pity she cannot appeal to the World Court, but the US does not acknowledge their jurisdiction re US affairs.
I hope those who can amongst the Truth movement in the States are looking out for her, as the government are not.
Very disturbing Paul. No plane crashed into the Pentagon but the US government was happy to see thousands of their own citizens slaughtered to steal oil abroad and set up puppet regimes to facilitate the intent of Israel to create a Middle Eastern bloc with it in charge. How badly that goes wrong too.
Legal action against Cheney and Co is unlikely since they know the puppeteers. I stay away from here because there are some who support these warmongers implicitly or otherwise.
The Duran speculates on whether Donald Trump had a hand in the release of the new and allegedly higher quality photos of the 9/11 aftermath.
http://theduran.com/did-donald-trump-have-a-hand-in-releasing-new-911-photos/
@ John Goss April 1, 2017 at 18:03
John, have you looked at the April Gallup info I commented on above, with a link from Pilots for 911 Truth?
I have now Paul. Thanks. Nothing surprises me any more. On this subject the the Bush warmongers must say thankful prayers to their god Moloch before they go to sleep. Pure evil.
@ John Goss April 1, 2017 at 21:03
I’m sure Moloch will reward them with the kind of reward they deserve, not that which they expect!
“For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?” Matt. 16:26
David Rockefeller will have a long time to ponder how he made ‘such a big mistake’.
Clark
Thanks for answering with good grace.
My point is this. The pages of history are filled with plotting intrigue and conspiracy. So it is entirely rational to have theories about such plots and some of those ‘conspiracy theories’ will turn out to be true. And yet the phrase in common parlance is used to assert a priori that such a theory is false and contains within it also the suggestion that the person subscribing to such theories is guilty of irrational thinking. But how can it be irrational to believe something that is true? As soon as you admit that some conspiracy theories are true – as we surely must – the phrase is revealed as vacuous, describing merely a theory that may or may not be true.
KingofWelshNoir, you are very clever with language; beware not to deceive yourself! –
– “But how can it be irrational to believe something that is true?”
You have reduced the infinite complexity of the world to a binary choice. All of the various official accounts of 9/11 that I have encountered clearly contain elements of cover-up; therefore, we do not know what is true. Clearly, it would be irrational to accept fully the official accounts, but that does not imply that believing any given alternative is rational. To concoct an obvious example, the official accounts do not admit that Godzilla stole a classified military invisibility device and then demolished the Twin Towers on 9/11, but that does not make such speculation rational.
I sympathise, because the thrust towards binary polarisation has been increasing for decades and is now nearly universal. It is a symptom of deprivation of facts, caused by increasing official secrecy and mass-“news”-media convergence towards official narratives. Maintaining an open mind becomes increasingly difficult against such a background.
Do you really not see the irrationality on this thread? The so-called conspiracy theorists reached their conclusions long since. Their endeavour now is to seize upon any convenient snippets, bend them however necessary such that they appears to support their conclusions, and then amplify and promote them as much as possible. The so-called conspiracy theorists cooperate in accusing any who challenge this endeavour of being agents of the conspiracy.
Is there really any rational reason to suspect, and indeed to promote the idea that BB18s are devices “used for remote controlled demolition”, or that a European performance art group rigged the Twin Towers for demolition? Is there any rational basis for the theories that Barry Jennings and Danny Jowenko were murdered to silence them, though their statements had long since been recorded and made widely available? Is there any rational basis to believe that the entire global physics and engineering communities could secretly accept an argument as simple as Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1”, and yet conspire to keep the public in ignorance of it? Is there rational basis to suspect that all the criticism of the US from of Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Julian Assange, Craig Murray etc. are really just to generate false credibility, to help cover up a theory based on the preceding assertions? I agree that what Building 7 did was highly suspicious, but there must be some limit to what we can infer from that about the rest of the world.
@ Clark April 1, 2017 at 23:26
‘…The so-called conspiracy theorists cooperate in accusing any who challenge this endeavour of being agents of the conspiracy….’
If you keep saying that often enough, we just might start to believe it.
Have you really not noticed that you do this? A mild example, but recent:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-107/#comment-664845
– “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)”
In other words, “those who disagree are at least stupid, and possibly evil”.
Clark, I’m not reducing anything to binary choices, merely pointing out that the phrase conspiracy theory is always used to assert the theory is false, and yet some are true. I accept you are not using the phrase in this manner.
“Conspiracy theory” has indeed been rendered vacuous, but “conspiracy theorist” applies to a recognisable mindset.
Weaponising these terms was a very clever move, since it has made the various meanings very difficult to untangle, and rendered certain discussions inflammatory. Further, the weaponisation actually empowers so-called conspiracy theorists, because it gives them justification to accuse those using the term of supporting the CIA or whoever. I would welcome suggestions for improvement.
Deep political, or parapolitical analyst.
Conspiracy investigator.
Those are good terms for open-minded investigators. What do you suggest for those who obsessively forge fictitious narratives from isolated snippets and conspire in attempting to enforce acceptance?
Journalists 🙂
(Many) journalists constitute a subset, certainly, but that term is by no means inclusive; it leaves out politicians, their spin doctors, and “public diplomacy” for a start. But worse, it touches no one “on the opposite side”, and that’s a problem. The matter of polarisation needs to be addressed.
@ Clark April 2, 2017 at 00:02
By your reckoning there must be an awful lot of vacuous people out there, as that is the stock result from the majority as soon as something like 9/11 or 7/7 is questioned.
Paul, there are an awful lot of false narratives (conventionally labelled as “conspiracy theories”) about both 7/7 and 9/11. Somewhere among all that dross there are serious issues.
Somehow, the drossiest narratives seem to dominate; Twin Tower demolition theory is a prime example – I have found no direct evidence for it at all. Such theories are a major obstacle to raising awareness of corporate / media / government cover-up, since any reader of mainstream sources who gets suspicious and starts looking deeper is immediately confronted with fantastic theories which turn out to be founded upon speculation, rumour and exaggeration, which scares our hapless novice investigator straight back to mainstream sources.
Surely some aspect of human nature must be responsible? It can’t all be the work of the CIA etc.
@ Clark April 2, 2017 at 12:22
I believe the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, and have an open mind on mini-nukes in sub basements of Twin Towers; I also believe the TV footage we saw of ‘planes’ striking the Towers was faked – though I do not often discuss that as it tends to put ignorant people off, and even some reasonable people.
If you don’t believe those things, it’s no skin off my nose.
I do not keep spouting away, that if someone believes and comments on a certain thing then they must be mad/disinfo/liars/bullshitters/anti-Semitic.
Now to business: Do you believe 4 Muslim suicide bombers were responsible for the 7/7 London Bombings?
Well I wouldn’t call them Muslims, exactly. It’s not something I’ve looked into deeply, but I expect it was suicide bombings, yes. What does Nafeez Ahmed have to say about it? He worked with Rachel North, didn’t he, and looked into the Covenant of Security?
15:47: – “I also believe the TV footage we saw of ‘planes’ striking the Towers was faked…”
That’s an utterly irrational belief, since they were witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people and something made great, inward holes in the buildings and produced huge fireballs.
“I do not keep spouting away, that if someone believes and comments on a certain thing then they must be mad/disinfo/liars/bullshitters/anti-Semitic”
But you DO keep insinuating that they must be some kind of agent.
@ Clark April 2, 2017 at 16:12
Fair enough, you haven’t looked into it much. I don’t know what Nefeez Ahmed thinks about it; I also don’t know much about 7/7, but there is a good site ‘J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign’ http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/J7-london-bombings-dossier/dossier14-devices-used.html It has a lot of good info on it.
I’ll just run over a few points:
A. The police originally said the 4 (alleged) bombers got on a certain train at Luton and traveled to London. An investigative Truther went to the station, did some investigations, and found the train the police said they used had been cancelled on 7/7, and that the next train to London arrived too late for them to have carried out the bombings. So eventually the police said they got an earlier train. Yet the Luton station has CCTV.
B. Despite London Underground stations and trains having loads of CCTV cameras, NOT ONE image of any of the alleged ‘bombers’ was shown to the public on the Underground system – one image was shown, of one of the ‘alleged’ bombers emerging from a Boots Chemist on King’s Cross mainline station.
C. Despite the No.30 bus having a very thorough safety and service check, just days before, ALL THREE of it’s CCTV cameras were said not to be working. Also, though a regular crew normally visited the bus depot to service the buses, on that occasion it was an unknown (to the depot staff) crew, and they were there longer than usual.
D. The depot staff were ordered not to talk to anyone about anything that went on at the depot.
E. The No.30 bus was redirected (before the explosion) to Tavistock Square, former home of the Tavistock Institute, well known for links with intelligence agencies and other dicey agencies (it was involved with the CIA MK-ULTRA program – though that might be hard to get info about). Here is part of an article that should start alarms ringing:
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml
‘Tavistock Institute is headquartered in London. Its prophet, Sigmond Freud, settled in Maresfield Gardens when he moved to England. He was given a mansion by Princess Bonaparte. Tavistock’s pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of “controlling” humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology. Its network now extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personal are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations. The personnel of the corporations are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these Tavistock controlled institutions. A network of secret groups, the Mont Pelerin Society, Trilateral Commission, Ditchley Foundation, and the Club of Rome is conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network….’
The PTB do like to rub our noses in it!
F. Despite not being any sort of proof, by ‘coincidence’ the No. 30 bus had a big advert on the side for a play,
‘“Outright Terror, Bold And Brilliant.”
G. Despite the police saying the ‘alleged’ bombers took their bombs on the trains in rucksacks, the floor of one of the trains was blown upwards, and a policeman warned a survivor to avoid the hole as he exited the carriage, because ‘that’s where the bomb went off’. You don’t need a PhD to figure a bomb inside a train would blow the floor downwards.
Nafeez Ahmed on 7/7 – my emphases:
In 2006 in the House of Lords, I was launching my book, The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (Duckworth) with the support of 7/7 survivors Rachel North and Prof. John Tulloch. When former MI5 officer David Shayler stood up at the event and declared that “9/11 was an inside job” and then proceeded to say the same about 7/7, I was so angry I told him there and then to his face in front of everyone present that his careless pronouncements were a disgraceful affront to the 9/11 and 7/7 families. He was shocked, sat down, and shut up.
Now I respect Shayler because he blew the whistle on MI5 operations in Libya involving the use of al-Qaeda linked terrorist to try to blow up Gaddafi, and clearly his experiences of harassment and pressure by the security service since then while under threat of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act took its toll on his health. But this was obviously way out of his area of expertise.
The fact is that the sword of the “gap” cuts both ways. When people say, for instance, that there’s insufficient evidence to incriminate Mohamed Sidique Khan and the other bombers in the 7/7 attacks (which I strongly disagree with by the way, although I’d also say it’s absolutely true that the limited evidence released in the public record so far would unlikely stand in a court of law), they fail to realise that the same standard means they can’t jump up and down, and incriminate the state beyond doubt either.
Indeed, my message to conspiracy theorists is simple: what happened to ‘innocent til proven guilty’? Why is every tiny snippet of evidence identifying a govt role in something dastardly automatic super-proof of full-on govt control or everything? Why is the govt always guilty? Do you really even believe that mantra, ‘innocent til proven guilty’, or does it only apply to suspected extremists and terrorists?
In much the same way that critics of the official narrative have identified holes in the government’s claims about its perpetrators, there is not a single alternative conspiracy theory of 9/11 blaming the state that does not itself contain holes and gaps. If you’re going to point out the holes, gaps and anomalies in what the government says – and rightly so – have the balls to admit the holes in your own claims.
I also have a message for incompetence theorists: the general capacity of the state to indulge in bureaucratic stupidity doesn’t provide a catch-all super-theory to vindicate your blind faith in the eternal innocence of government. Yes, you do actually need to ask specific questions about specific things to find out why governments do what they do… and guess what! Peeps in power DO CONSPIRE!! [SHOCK!!! HORROR!!! DISBELIEF!!!]
http://www.nafeezahmed.com/2015/08/911-conspiracy-theory-and-bullshit.html
‘History Channel Covers Up Pearl Harbor’: https://nomoregames.net/2016/12/06/history-channel-covers-up-pearl-harbor/
Some folks do like the sound of their own voices.
A conspiracy theorist can be someone who smells a rat every time a government spokesperson opens their cake hole, or a group of firms rise their prices in tandem, or the MSM print in unison, among other things.
Particularly if war, austerity, more intrusive surveillance or loss of civil or human rights is said to required because of some situation the PTB created in the first place: Problem, Reaction, Solution – yeh, right.
Some folks show their true colours through their incessant ‘anti-conspiracy exposure’ stance.
Sometimes conspiracy theorists get it wrong – in that they are not alone; who doesn’t?
– “Some folks show their true colours through their incessant ‘anti-conspiracy exposure’ stance”
There you go again; “they must be agents”. Who are you to determine someone’s “true colours” from mere words posted on the Internet? There is always far more unseen and unknown than any one of us can see and know, and only omniscience could enable reliable judgement of others.
– “Sometimes conspiracy theorists get it wrong…”
Well to me they seem motivated to get it “wrong”, because their “errors” invariably lead towards specific conclusions. This resembles Bush and Blair etc. over Iraq; so many “mistakes” consistently in the same direction look more like policy.
When conspiracy theorists get nasty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-39194035
This is an interesting podcast, which looks at the people who deny that the Sandy Hook massacre ever took place. The usual suspects (Alex Jones etc.) have made themselves pretty rich by peddling this heartless nonsense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04xtpzf
It’s not a harmless pondering over a conspiracy theory here. The bereaved are stalked, threatened and abused by the miserable devotees of Jones et al, who think it great sport to taunt them with the notion that their dead children never existed. You’ll hear the daughter of the murdered head teacher, who regularly gets told her mother never existed.
The 9/11 stuff isn’t harmless either. Barry Jennings’ family were driven to conceal their location and contact details. On certain Truther videos you’ll see caption screens requesting viewers to respect the Jennings’ privacy.
The non-sheeple, the superior ones who know better than everyone else, the ones who don’t like to be called “conspiracy theorists” – it’s what they do:
The cyber-stalking of London bombing victim Rachel North:
https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2tgnge/the_cyberstalking_of_london_bombing_victim_rachel/
– And they became very suspicious of me. They formed this theory that I was some kind of counterintelligence professional or security services covert operative. Actually, some of them thought I didn’t even exist. They thought I was a team of men who were tasked with creating this Rachel from north London persona, and maintaining it as a means of what they called psy-ops, you know, psychological operations to control the population of the UK.
– Jon Ronson: I’ve just found what somebody’s written about you here.
– “Rachel–” and then in brackets “Rachel Schmachel” as if to imply that your name’s not really Rachel.
That’s appalling. The organised harassment and attempted character assassination North has been subjected to, going as far to claim that the vicious rape she suffered in 2002 never happened, just proves that Truthers aren’t at all interested in any evidence that contradicts their pre-conceptions.
But I can’t blame it all on Truthers or “conspiracy theorists”. If governments, corporations, “public relations” companies, legal image management companies etc. were transparent, there wouldn’t be so many dark corners for people to get paranoid about. Half a billion dollars of US military money spent to make fake al-Qaeda videos in Iraq, for fuck’s sake…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/01/pentagon-paid-for-fake-al-qaeda-videos.html
It’s TRUTH > Justice > Peace.
As opposed to:
Deception > Injustice > Conflict.
Secrecy > Confusion > Conflict.
How many of these questions have been properly answered:
http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html
@ Clark April 3, 2017 at 01:08
The crux of the matter is that most weren’t, according to the Jersey Girls and others.
I believ it was 80% not answered, if my memory serves me, but I know it was the vast majority.And these people were relatives of victims, so no question about ‘disrespecting’ victims relatives.
@ Kempe April 2, 2017 at 23:20
That includes, of course, Truthers who haven’t posted sweet FA about North?
Threading my way past the double negative whilst I’ve not had time to do a thorough survey the leading 7/7 conspiracy sites, including the tin foil godfather David Icke himself, include a “critique” of North’s book and often throw doubt on her very existence, referring to her as Rachel “North”. In most cases the critique is a cut and paste job.
I may have read that “North” is a pseudonym. Originally she blogged as “Rachel from North London”. I’ve no reason to doubt that she’s genuine.
Something rather consistent about these “conspiracy theories” is that they all aid denial of neoconservative exploitation of and collaboration with “Islamic” extremism. Rachel North helped expose the “Covenant of Security”, under which “Islamic” extremists were (are?) permitted to live in the UK and train and plan operations, on the undertaking that their atrocities would all be performed in other countries. 9/11 and 7/7 “Truth” have the hijackers / bombers not existing. The murder of Lee Rigby is said not to have happened at all, despite one of the killers having been tortured at MI6’s request. Ironically, the “conspiracy theorists” never seem to suspect this of being evidence of psy-ops, apparently reserving their copious paranoia for Noam Chomsky and critical thinkers in blog comment sections.
I have been to at least one, probably more, 9/11 – 7/7 meetings which ‘Rachel North’ attended, probably shortly after 7/7. So our group know she exists, but we did not believe her story.
@ Clark April 2, 2017 at 17:39
Oddly enough, the REAL superior ones, ‘God’s chosen people’, can commit every abomination under heaven, with impunity and generally with the blessing of the ‘West’. Truth, Justice, and Peace? Tell that to the Palestinians (or American Indians, Aborigines, Maoris, Canadian Indigenous peoples, descendants of slaves, Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, Chagossians, Armenians, Vietnamese and others).
Still, who cares? Everything’s cushti, I’m OK Jack.
That comment looks to me like you’re blaming Jews for everything your list refers to.
Are you certain you’re so pure? Doesn’t look it to me.
@ Clark April 3, 2017 at 08:09
You are right again; it was very badly written. I did not mean that at all, only in the case of Palestine. Somehow, as soon as I wrote Palestinians, I thought they were certainly not the only ones whose lands were taken by others.
I assure you I did not mean to blame all these events on one group.
Very sloppy writing; it was 5 o’clock in the morning, after a skinful, so my thinking was not as sharp as usual.
Many races think they are superior, and that this gives them the right to take others land, and kill, enslave or repress the Indigenous peoples.
@ Clark April 2, 2017 at 17:57
A long spiel, already, as per usual. But no reference to the half-dozen or so points I made about 7/7.
I’m quite surprised at Nafeez Ahmed’s denunciation of Shayler’s interjection (which is absolutely correct in substance; both 9/11 and 7/7 WERE ‘Inside Jobs’).
Nafeez certainly seems to have learnt a few things since then, as he has become pretty good on 9/11.
“Already”? Insinuation again?
You may as well write plainly. Other people aren’t as stupid as you seem to think.
@ Clark April 3, 2017 at 08:14
I have Jewish blood myself; I quite often use these kind of terms, and it was not meant to infer anything about you. Another phrase I often use is ‘I should be worried, already!’, hardly aimed at anyone else; another phrase I often use: ‘such a thing!’.
@ Clark April 3, 2017 at 08:14
I did reply to this, but it’s in moderation. I’ll try again, ‘disguising’ the word that probably got my furst in moderation:
@ Clark April 3, 2017 at 08:14
I have **wish blood myself; I quite often use these kind of terms, and it was not meant to infer anything about you. Another phrase I often use is ‘I should be worried, already!’, hardly aimed at anyone else; another phrase I often use: ‘such a thing!’.
– “Nafeez certainly seems to have learnt a few things since then”
The article is less than two years old. 4 August, 2015:
http://www.nafeezahmed.com/2015/08/911-conspiracy-theory-and-bullshit.html
You seem unaware of your own bias, but from where I’m standing it seems to colour everything you see.
@ Clark April 3, 2017 at 08:22
I’ll have to reassess Nafeez Ahmed; I had thought he was onside re 9/11 being an ‘Inside Job’. Very odd; I think it was him appearing in the video ‘Zero’ that gave me that idea. I’ll have to watch it again.
Quilliam and the Henry Jackson Society are not the sorts of organisation I would have associated him with.
Thanks for alerting me to this.
There are many people, famous people, like Gore Vidal for instance, who do not believe the official narrative of 9/11. Unsurprisingly their reasons are not always the same. Alan Hart, former BBC journalist for Panorama when Panorama was a proper investigative programme, has his own views based to some extent on what engineers have told him.
“But since you’ve raised it, I’ll tell you what I honestly believe. I think it probably started out as an all-Muslim operation, but I think it would have been very quickly penetrated by Mossad agents.
“Now it’s not a secret — I detail it in my book — from almost the moment Israel was born, it had its agents penetrating every Arab government, every Arab military organization, and every Arab terrorist group, whatever. So they would certainly have penetrated this. And my guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA, “Hey this operation’s running, what do we do?” And the Zionists and the Neo-cons said, “Let’s use it.”
Now what is true and what is false, I believe, beyond that is not arguable. The Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes. Now I tell you in passing that among the friends I have are consultants who work for the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm. I’m not going to name it. But they have studied the film for me. And they have said there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Towers were brought down by controlled ground explosion.”
Only somebody who is not an engineer would argue against that conclusion. But there are some.
http://starseedbobs.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/911-famous-truth-supporters-amazing.html
You had a career in manufacturing, John. Engineers designed things and you made them. If you’re an engineer, you can explain this joke:
Integral 1/cabin dcabin
= Ln(cabin) + c
= Houseboat
Any engineer can see that both the Twin Towers collapsed from the damaged sections downward. Those who have watched the videos carefully will have seen that the core remnants stood longest, ruling out ground explosions as the initiator of collapse.
Again you have questioned my precision engineering skills. Your memory is short.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-101/#comment-643424
I have just had a comment go into moderation because, I suspect, it mentions the only protected race (religion) that cannot be mentioned on this blog without a judges’ inquiry. Ironically, and this is not the first time this has happened, I was quoting someone else. So either the word J EW, MOS SAD or ZIO NIST has thrown the comment into moderation. Others seem to be able to discuss this issue without moderation. So it seems Paul Barbara is right.
April 3, 2017 at 04:55
The comment was April 3, 2017 at 10:01
– “Others seem to be able to discuss this issue without moderation”
No, my comment was suspended until approval. You just need to be patient. I know that’s hard when you’re burning with righteous zeal.
It is deeply disappointing to read Nafeez Ahmed’s attack on conspiracy theorists aka ‘bullshit mongers’.
Not because of the incoherent or at times hysterical tone, but because it reveals him to be a nauseating hypocrite. To anyone who suggests the 9/11 attacks were permitted to happen he retorts absurdly, ‘What happened to innocent until proven guilty?’
He has clearly not read, or forgotten he wrote, his own book, ‘The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11th, 2001’. In that copiously footnoted, and thoroughly researched book he argues that the attacks were permitted to happen by the Bush administration.
What a wanker.
Here are some extracts from the executive summary at the front of the book.
Decide for yourself.
Executive Summary
…
Indeed, the anti-Taliban stance of the U.S. government grew, not out of any specific concern for the human rights of the Afghan people, but out of a more general and growing realisation that the Taliban regime would be incapable of serving as a vehicle of U.S. entry into Central Asia. In relation to this, extensive U.S. government and corporate planning for the establishment of pipelines to the vast oil and gas reserves of the Caspian basin were put on hold, because of the insufficient security in Afghanistan under Taliban rule.
…Accordingly, U.S. officials promised the Taliban that they would suffer the consequences by facing “a carpet of bombs,” and further noted privately that the military plans would be implemented by October 2001. Extensive evidence on record indicates that the Bush administration intended to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban regime quite independently of the events of 11th September. The war on Afghanistan was thus not a response to 11th September. On the contrary, there is a long record of in-depth strategic planning at the root of U.S. military plans to invade Afghanistan. Much of this evidence is available in a 1997 CFR study by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who discusses in detail U.S. plans to secure hegemony over Central Asia as a means to the control of Eurasia, and thereby the expansion and consolidation of global U.S. hegemony, unhindered by potential rivals, such as Russia and China.
Against this backdrop, there is considerable evidence that, from 1995 to 2001, the American intelligence community was in receipt of multiple credible warnings of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. Contrary to the official line of the Bush administration, this information, which was taken seriously by the U.S. intelligence community, specified the hijacking of civilian airplanes to be flown into key U.S. buildings in Washington, DC and New York City, including the World Trade Centre. The nature of these urgent warnings converged in a manner specifying that the attacks would occur between early and mid-September, while other credible information pinpointed 11th September as a likely watch date. Yet despite this extensive forewarning of the attacks, the Bush administration failed to act.
The failure to act was even more apparent on 11th September itself. There are clear rules established by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense for responding to emergency situations, including hijacking. Yet, although four planes were almost simultaneously hijacked on 11th September, the U.S. Air Force systematically failed to respond in accordance with these rules, which are normally adhered to with routine, since they constitute Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Subsequently, various official government accounts and statements have been issued attempting to deflect public attention from, thus denying the reality of, the collapse of SOP on 11th September.
In this context, the systematic violation of Standard Operating Procedures by the U.S. Air Force is an event that appears to have occurred with the complicity of key government and military officials in the Bush administration. This notion is supported by evidence that both President George W. Bush Jr. and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard B. Myers displayed utter indifference to notification they received of the
commencement of an air attack on the World Trade Centre, despite their
responsibility at that time to ensure the security of the American nation.
The ominous implications of these facts are exacerbated in light of various revelations about the long-standing financial, diplomatic, military and intelligence ties between the members of the Bush administration and figures linked to Osama bin Laden–not to mention Osama himself. Reports indicate that until just after 11th September, the Bush family had close financial ties to the bin Laden family, and both were set to reap substantial profits from the war on Afghanistan through their mutual involvement in the U.S. defence industry. This has been accompanied by credible reports that Osama bin Laden has not broken away from his family and maintains ties with them. Further reports show that the Bush administration has systematically blocked attempts to apprehend Osama bin Laden, along with intelligence investigations of the terrorist connections of the bin Laden family and Saudi royals implicated in supporting Osama.
This state of affairs has largely continued in the aftermath of 11th September, despite the fact noted by former Deputy Director and Director of Antiterrorism for the FBI, John O’Neill, that the key to Osama bin Laden lies in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, abundant evidence indicates that the U.S. government has simultaneously maintained ties with figures in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who support Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, while blocking all meaningful investigations of those figures.
A particularly damning example is the U.S. response to revelations first in India, and then in Pakistan, that the then Director-General of Pakistani military intelligence, Mahmoud Ahmad, had funneled $100,000 to the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, shortly before 11t h September. The Bush administration, on confirming this fact through the FBI, blocked any further inquiry into the role of Pakistani military intelligence in supporting Al-Qaeda by requesting that Ahmad, from behind-the-scenes, quietly pursue early retirement as a purported consequence of routine re-shuffling.
In the aftermath of 11th September, the Bush administration embarked on a devastating bombing campaign in Afghanistan, killing up to 5,000 Afghan civilians—almost double the number of civilians killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. This massive bombardment of the country resulted in the destruction of the Taliban regime, making way for the installation of a new, interim government.
…
Subsequently, on the pretext of entering into a new “war on terror,” the Bush administration successfully secured unlimited war powers, free from Congressional accountability. This has established an open-ended militarisation of foreign policy in which any country can be targeted at will on the pretext of harbouring terrorists.
In the U.S., this has been accompanied by unprecedented curbs on civil liberties and basic human rights, the crushing of domestic dissent, and the criminalisation of legitimate protest. Many authoritative commentators have described these domestic measures as moves toward the establishment of an American police state. The combination of militarisation abroad and repression at home has granted the Bush administration a free hand to pursue its strategic and economic interests, consolidating a permanent military presence in Afghanistan and Central Asia, and moving swiftly to establish lucrative pipeline deals to secure access to regional resources and energy deposits. It has allowed the Bush administration to challenge its principal rivals—Europe, China and Russia—in the pursuit of control of Central Asia, with the final objective of consolidating U.S. hegemony over the entirety of Eurasia, thus moving toward the establishment of unrivalled globalhegemony.
Prior to 11th September, all of this was inconceivable.
HERE’S THE KEY PHRASE, ARE YOU READING THIS NAFEEZ?:
The tragic catastrophe of 11th September, which was apparently permitted to occur by the Bush administration
—and further effectively pushed forward by the administration through its ongoing support of key allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who support bin Laden and Al-Qaeda—allowed the U.S. to expand, consolidate and empower its hegemony, both at home and abroad, to an unprecedented level.
KingofWelshNoir, you accept Twin Tower demolition theory. That is the talisman that protects you from the wrath of the bullshit-mongering “conspiracy theorists”. It is a Required Belief; conform or be vilified. You’ve chosen your side in what you rather obviously see as a binary choice.
The bullshit-mongering “conspiracy theorists” look far nastier from my perspective which, like Ahmed’s, conforms to neither of your sides. Nafeez Ahmed’s knowledge and understanding preclude him from denying “Islamic” extremism, and mine preclude me from denying structural failure. Both he and I are therefore shot by both sides.
Cowardice would buy a more comfortable ride, temporarily. But when the consequences of the various distortions play out, I’ll take heart that I followed my conscience.
You make no real attempt to understand the post, but instead refer to it tangentially in order to trot our your ‘binary choice’ hobbyhorse.
My post above makes no mention of the twin towers demolition theory, neither does Ahmed’s book, which confines itself entirely to documentary evidence about US foreign policy, intelligence & military matters.
My complaint against him is that he disparages people for holding views that he himself set out with forensic detail in his 2002 book.
One thing I understand is the difference between Nafeez Ahmed, who has studied copious evidence, and those he criticises as “conspiracy theorists and bullshit mongers”, who obsessively collect “anomalies”, and isolate, bend and exaggerate them in support of their prejudice.
Another thing I understand is that you craft your comments to attract the favour of the types he criticises.
I take no view on Sandy Hook because at the time I couldn’t be arsed to look into it. I do find it interesting, however, that the BBC news item linked to by Kempe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-39194035
Has as its main image a photo of Noah Pozner, a boy who apparently died at Sandy Hook and later died in Pakistan school terror attack.
https://www.infowars.com/mystery-sandy-hook-victim-dies-again-in-pakistan/
I advance no theories, but would be interested to know what folk make of it. And in case you want to say it is an Infowars hoax, or something, the BBC report it links to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30629751
does indeed show the reporter in Pakistan walking past photos of Noah Pozner
I think we can be pretty certain that Noah Pozner is dead. Or can we? Like you I don’t know enough about the Sandy Hook massacre. As an engineer though I can tell you that the twin towers and building 7 were brought down by controlled demolitions. There is no question about that.
Here is my comment that went into moderation with two words altered slightly.
**************************************************************
There are many people, famous people, like Gore Vidal for instance, who do not believe the official narrative of 9/11. Unsurprisingly their reasons are not always the same. Alan Hart, former BBC journalist for Panorama when Panorama was a proper investigative programme, has his own views based to some extent on what engineers have told him.
“But since you’ve raised it, I’ll tell you what I honestly believe. I think it probably started out as an all-Muslim operation, but I think it would have been very quickly penetrated by Mos sad agents.
“Now it’s not a secret — I detail it in my book — from almost the moment Israel was born, it had its agents penetrating every Arab government, every Arab military organization, and every Arab terrorist group, whatever. So they would certainly have penetrated this. And my guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA, “Hey this operation’s running, what do we do?” And the Zio nists and the Neo-cons said, “Let’s use it.”
Now what is true and what is false, I believe, beyond that is not arguable. The Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes. Now I tell you in passing that among the friends I have are consultants who work for the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm. I’m not going to name it. But they have studied the film for me. And they have said there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Towers were brought down by controlled ground explosion.”
Only somebody who is not an engineer would argue against that conclusion. But there are some.
http://starseedbobs.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/911-famous-truth-supporters-amazing.html
I’m an engineer, and I argue against it. The collapses of the Twin Towers were consistent with progressive collapse initiated by structural failure.
Well that makes two of us.
That anybody should be impressed by the opinions of a lot of largely Z-List actors and comedians beggars belief.
I really have no idea how anyone who considers themselves an engineer could think that the Twin Towers were brought down from ground level (or below). You can watch the destruction proceeding downwards, clear as daylight; it obviously started at the damaged zones, whether it involved explosives or not.
“Only somebody who is not an engineer would argue against that conclusion. But there are some.”
Speak of the devil and who turns up? Clark and Kemp. Both claiming to be engineers. 😀 😀 I’ve seen no proof of their engineering accomplishments. Perhaps they would like to share the engineering sectors into which their expertise falls. Till then I shall consider Clark to be a self-acclaimed fixer of broken objects with bits and bobs and stuff that’s lying around. Of Kemp’s expertise I have no knowledge but from his comments he does not demonstrate where his engineering strengths lie.
As to Clark (again) questioning my precision engineering skills I am not going over old ground. I already had to bring him down a peg or two over this.
Yes, that’s right John; all my life I’ve used my ingenuity. Through understanding of fundamental principles and application of experimental method, logic and critical thinking I have worked things out for myself, looking up technical specifics when necessary – mechanics, automotive, electrics, electronics, hydraulics, photographics, cinematics, optics in general, sound engineering, servos, feedback systems, tellys, videos, optical storage, digital circuitry, computers and software, woodwork, metalwork, machining; I’ve just taken up welding. But as I said before, understanding how things break and fail, and preventing it from happening again, is one of my specialities.
Engineering is a state of mind. I don’t suppose you’ve read Zen and the Art?
“I don’t suppose you’ve read Zen and the Art?” You suppose wrongly. I read it years ago. Persig was, like myself, a technical author before he wrote that book. I was disappointed. It had little if anything to do with Zen Buddhism and practically nothing to do with motorcycle maintenance. What I recall was he took his son on a journey of discovery.
Now Adam Osborne was also a technical author. He was the inventor of the first PC the Osborne 1. He called technical authorship ‘the armpit of the industry’.
For you to calim to be an engineer when you have no knowledge of how things collapse defies belief. Do any of your contraptions work?
– ” It had little if anything to do with Zen Buddhism and practically nothing to do with motorcycle maintenance”
Well you seem to remember the preface forenote, because that’s what it says. Do you remember the “professionals” in the workshop who heard the piston slap but diagnosed loose tappets? How about the relationship between the mental model and the piece being machined, each gradually changing until both come to rest? That’s one of the most elegant and enlightening descriptions I’ve ever read, and equally applicable to sculpture, which is the point (“Art of…”). Do you remember the author cogitating upon and worrying about the motorcycle slightly misfiring, until he realises it’s the thinner atmosphere at higher altitude? What about the differences and similarities between a shim from BMW’s stock and one cut from an empty beer can? Why some people won’t change a tap washer? Maybe you didn’t like the bit about Newton’s laws having a similarly minimal existence as Native Americans’ ghosts.
A truly profound book, but you seem to have learned nothing from it. Maybe you weren’t paying attention, which might also explain why you make claims incompatible with visible attributes of the collapses of the Twin Towers, such as suggesting underground explosions. Indeed, claims incompatible with general science, such as camera shake being caused by a nuke, though everything in frame moves in synchronism, and “hologram planes”, apparently forgetting that light moves in straight lines.
Dunning-Kruger effect, sorry to say.
I have described in considerable detail my model which broadly outlines the collapse sequence of the Twin Towers. I doubt you even remember it; I’ll repeat it if you ask. It explains the major observed effects, which can’t be said even of the “crush up then crush down” theory. An engineer might find that interesting, but you seem to prefer several highly unlikely suggestions which are vague, contradictory, sensational and crucially, untestable.
“What is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good ~ Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?”
OK. I’m a degree qualified engineer. A professional engineer. I’ve worked in the construction, defence, aerospace, automotive, consumer and railway sectors. I’ve designed load bearing structures in timber, steel and aluminium; I’ve designed and built test rigs to test things from cars, automotive components and sub assemblies, power tools, domestic appliances through to pumps and medical equipment. I’ve worked on mobile and static communications systems, guided missiles and flight simulators. In my spare time I did a second degree in physics, an MBA and built a car.
So, please explain to me how a controlled ground explosion, nuclear or not, causes a building to collapse from the top down.
@ Kempe April 3, 2017 at 23:13
Thank you for giving us your credentials. They do give your opinions more credibility.
As you will no doubt be aware, some nukes have a variable yield, which is set I believe just by turning a knob. IF nukes were used, the yield would have been very small, aimed not to bring the Towers down but to appreciably weaken the central structures, leaving enough support in place to still keep the Towers standing. That is purely supposition on my part, but after I have been to the meeting where a German nuclear physicist is due to give a talk, I will hopefully be able to give you his take on it.
Well I hope whoever it is takes the time to explain that it’s not possible to make a mini-nuke. For a nuclear bomb to work it needs a minimum amount, a critical mass, of fissile material. From memory about 9kg Uranium, 6kg Plutonium. The smallest warhead ever made was for the Davy Crockett missile which had a yield of between 10 and 20 tons of TNT which is about as small as it’s possible to go. You can judge the effect here:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZbrwb1mLQ
FF to about 48 seconds.
Ten tons of TNT would be equivalent to about 3.9 on the Richter scale or equivalent to the blast at Chernobyl which spread radioactive debris across europe. Seismic records show the biggest shock from the fall of the twin towers was 2.1 to 2.3 on the Richter scale which is equivalent to a about 22kg of TNT (it’s a logarithmic scale).
So, no “mini-nukes” at the WTC or anywhere else.
The Davy Crocket nuclear weapon is very old technology. However, some things are inescapable and I think with your knowledge the following paper, written with lay-readers in mind, states that there couls have been no other way that the buildings could have been brought down than by a nuclear weapon. Before trying to discredit it I suggest you, and everyone else, read it.
p62
“The only explanation that is possible – and indeed the scientifically inescapable conclusion – is that a large scale fission chain reaction of Uranium 235 took place in the locality, releasing Strontium, Barium and many other radionucleides into the environment as daughter products of Uranium fission.
In other words – a Nuclear Explosion.”
http://www.nucleardemolition.com/files/Download/GZero_Report0.pdf
Just out of interest was your second degree in Physics a bachelor degree or a masters?
Kempe, April 3, 23:13: thanks for the summary of your education and experience.
Paul Barbara, April 4, 00:49:
– “…to appreciably weaken the central structures”
But the central structures, the cores, stood longest. You can see the core remnants on the videos.
Kempe, April 4, 14:45:
– “…it’s not possible to make a mini-nuke”
Ted Taylor was the genius nuke designer; he designed both the biggest and the smallest US nukes. Fission explosions were his hobby and he worked on a project that could take humanity to the stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Taylor_(physicist)
He more than hinted that mini-nukes are possible. I have heard, but cannot confirm, that if the line of reasoning he suggested happens to arise on physics forums, a senior moderator intervenes and closes the thread.
There are books that claim that Nazi Germany, in the last years of the war, had nuclear weapons that exploded even though they were at less than what is normally considered critical mass. Something to do with high pressure and implosion. Since I have no expertise in physics, I have no idea whether such a thing is theoretically feasible.
As someone with training in history and military matters, I find it hard to understand why Nazi Germany, if it had such things, would not have used them militarily.
@ KingofWelshNoir April 3, 2017 at 10:59
Jim Fetzer wrote a good book on the subject (I haven’t read it but I have been told by friends who have that it is good), ‘Nobody Died At Sandy Hook’ http://moonrockbooks.com/
Here is a video: ‘School Safety Expert Threatened for Questioning Sandy Hook’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6roDPt1WYYY
And here’s Fetzer’s blog: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/nobody-died-at-sandy-hook-it-was-fema.html
This is a vague memory, but I think Noah Pozner’s image was reused in a Pakistani propaganda poster. There may be a clue to this in the poster itself. Snopes.com may be helpful.
Snopes.com is shit. It was run by a man and wife (now divorced) and well-financed by those peddlars of misinformation. I have been saying this for months. You should know that since it is one of six organisations employed by Facebook to check for Fake News.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/01/03/snopes-outed-unfit-arbiter-truth.aspx
Well if it has something on Noah Pozner, maybe its assertions are checkable, but you won’t know unless you look.
Just so you know about Jim Fetzer:
Did Mossad death squads slaughter American children at Sandy Hook?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/did-mossad-death-squads-slaughter-american-children-at-sandy-hook/
His evidence it was Mossad?
– “The Sandy Hook massacre appears to have been a psy op intended to strike fear in the hearts of Americans by the sheer brutality of the massacre, where the killing of children is a signature of terror ops conducted by agents of Israel.
– The choice appears to be covertly revealing, where “Sandy” means guardian of men (as an allusion to guns) and “Hook” as a euphemism for hooking, gathering or confiscating the only weapons that DHS fears. And who better to slaughter American children than Israelis, who deliberately murder Palestinian children?”
@ Clark April 3, 2017 at 16:56
That is really odd, because his book cane out in 2015, amd as it’s title suggests, he believes no one died at Sandy Hook.
I am in touch with him, and will ask him about it next time i contact him. By coincidence I emailled him only a couple of days ago re something.
You could also ask him about the probity of reverse-engineering a tragic event into a conspiracy theory involving thousands of improbable (and totally unproved) “actors” pretending that the event took place. But you should really ask him why the hell they went to all this trouble, and desperately obvious exposure, since nothing significant happened as a result?
Of course, the “gun-grab” by Clinton, sorry, Al Gore, sorry, Obama (don’t forget Hillary!) was always the end-game, in the addled minds of these lunatics. Despite the fact it never happened or was even on the cards – but let’s not worry ourselves about facts.
I’m rather distainful of these heartless Sandy Hook massacre deniers. Their denial is cheap, lazy and unbelievably hurtful to the innocent, for the deniers’ miserable entertainment.
This fine fellow you are proud to be in touch with, is just such a person. Do you pal around with Holocaust deniers too?
Fetzer’s a Holocaust denier, too.
A whole load of 9/11 conspiracy crap is anti-Semitic. I didn’t realise initially because most of the anti-Semitic “Truthers” write in innuendo. I expect that quite a few aren’t fully conscious of their anti-Semitism.
I’d heard of the “five dancing Israelis” of course, but not much more than that. Trump personally saw whole street-loads of Muslims singing and dancing in celebration – I think we can take his word on the matter. /cough/
Talking about innuendo, the entire “pizza-gate” nonsense concerns Podesta’s email, when he refers to, well, pizzas, in connection with one particular pizza joint in Washington DC. Of course, when someone refers to pizza, what else could they possibly be referring to, other than child prostitutes?
Hence the entire “pizza-gate” conspiracy theory was born. Substitute “child prostitute” for “pizza” in every email mentioning the latter, and there’s your proof. Doubtless anyone denying this child sex ring has to be in on it themselves. After all, what else could the Clintons be doing with their time, when they take a break away from speaking engagements and running for office?
There is a point worth noting – right wingers are far more susceptible to fake news than their counterparts on the left. And nothing slows them down – all that crap about gun-grabs, Hillary dying of Parkinson’s, 30,000 guillotines, FEMA death-camps, millions of body-bags at the ready, UN takeovers of the US – all of it was crap. Nothing happened, no evidence ever emerged. Yet they’re as ready as ever to lap it up when the next bucket of BS is put in front of them.
Glenn, I often wonder if there’s an outfit crafting and seeding “conspiracy theories” (1) as cover for real crimes and (2) to attempt to discredit influential figures who make strong criticisms of the establishment. For instance, the following was recently brought to my attention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Children%27s_Refuge_case
Note that the missionaries were flown out by the US Air Force, and Silsby’s connection to “AMBER Alert”, a child abduction alert system. Now compare with the following article, the references of which I’ve yet to follow up:
http://disobedientmedia.com/the-clinton-silsby-trafficking-scandal-and-how-the-media-covered-it-up/
This stuff can be found amongst the Pizzagate material, unless you lose patience with all the chaff about performance artists and made-up “code words” before you encounter it.
Clark: The influence of Evangelical Christians is very deep in the US armed forces, and most particularly with the USAF. It’s not a stretch to imagine they would be happy to fasciliate (in all good faith, if you’ll forgive the term) what they – or some sky-spook orientated high ranking official – consider some Godly mission, in their limited view.
Hucksters are always making good money off the gullible faithful in the US, it’s a huge industry. Depending on how good a line you can spin, supposedly fellow Evangelicals will overlook a great deal.
The USAF is far more likely to be stupid and consumed with Evangelical hogwash, than complicit in some genuine scandal like child trafficing.
Just started looking at your second ref, and following the sub-refs briefly… Bill Clinton was always keen on getting fellow Yanks out of trouble in barely civilised countries. It sat well with his image. If he’d been approached by yet more well intentioned Evangelicals (and there are a heck of a lot of them in the US, believe me…) about some decent people that needed rescuing without much effort on his part other than showing up, it fits with his character to weigh in and do so.
Nothing’s striking me so far as anything more significant than that.
Glenn, thanks. Maybe one day I’ll get around to assessing that article, hopefully before RobG loses patience and shoots me.
Glenn, I think you should look at my second link more carefully:
“The Clinton-Silsby Trafficking Scandal And How The Media Covered It Up”
http://disobedientmedia.com/the-clinton-silsby-trafficking-scandal-and-how-the-media-covered-it-up/
The Wilipedia account seems to have been watered down. There’s no mention of the Clinton’s involvement at all, and of convicted sex trafficker Jorge Puello it omits that he really had been acting as the kidnappers’ legal advisor; instead it says:
– “In the days following the group’s initial arrest, Dominican Jorge Puello falsely portrayed himself as the group’s lawyer”
The Disobedient Media article also has information about how the Reddit post r/the_donald came under attack from The Daily Beast; another Clinton connection there:
– “The Daily Beast is a holding of American media conglomerate InterActiveCorp. Chelsea Clinton, Vice President of the Clinton Foundation and daughter of Hillary and Bill Clinton, sits on InterActiveCorp’s Board of Directors”
– “Of course, the “gun-grab” by Clinton, sorry, Al Gore, sorry, Obama (don’t forget Hillary!) was always the end-game, in the addled minds of these lunatics. Despite the fact it never happened”
Because the “conspiracy theorists” exposed the scam, obviously. Just ask anyone on the bus; they’ll tell you all about it.
… but, but… what about the scam of these billionaires raking it in, and paying no tax, the NHS being privitised, more examples of crony capitalism than you could shake a stick at, and banksters being back-stopped by the taxpayer while they gamble with our money, and… and…
How come that doesn’t get stopped, even after it’s been exposed?
—
PS Would that be the short bus?
I know what an S100 bus is, and I know what a bus short is, but what’s a short bus?
Ah, Urban Dictionary has told me…
A colleague has just forwarded this to me. It is a BBC reporter, Steven Evans, talking about the explosions, a series of explosions. It just adds to the other reporters, firemen, first responders and many other witnesses who heard them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c666hi5ug0&feature=youtu.be
Here is Steven Evans later. His story is the same. Explosions in plural.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjezhp0rL3M
Yes, there were many explosions on 9/11.
No doubt many more things that sounded like explosions too.
John
In 2015, having heard Evans on the radio, I tweeted this:
(He has been in retreat, ever since.)
Are you still a 9/11 believer?
Think your “much, much, lower explosion” account
On Wales OnL you blamed OBL
Still sure?
@EvanstheAirwave Are you still a 9/11 believer? Think your “much, much, lower explosion” account On Wales OnL you blamed OBL Still sure?
@EvanstheAirwave
I have never blamed OBL; see now BEYOND MISINFORMATION @AE911truth
3:15 AM – 25 Dec 2015
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I believe that Evans knows more than he now wants to let on
Or more than it is worth letting on!
@ John Goss April 4, 2017 at 22:35
I’m sure a lot of politicians know too, but are afraid to speak out.
After all, they most may be avaricious, but they aren’t all fools. If we can figure it out, so can they.
Same with the likes of Chumsky.
Albert Stubblebine, Andreas von Bülow, Jesse Ventura, Dario Fo – all murdered? Ruined?
Really, this resembles the witch trials. If they drown, they weren’t witches.
Yeah, right. If someone doesn’t say what you want them to say, just claim they’re not letting on! Oh, and maybe The Conspiracy is out to kill them.
Conspiracy explains everything, which is why you lot are called “conspiracy theorists”.
@ Clark April 4, 2017 at 22:51
Rather odd, considering your apparent distaste foe ‘conspiracy theorists’, you never condemn the weirdest, most unlikely ‘conspiracy theory’ of all – the government ‘conspiracy theory’ that a guy on dialysis, in a cave in Afghanistan, armed with a Kalashnikov and a laptop, masterminded an extremely successful plot to arrange for 19 hijackers, armed with box cutters, got same through security,managed to become invisible so no CCTV of them boarding, waiting in line, or even being on the manifest, most whom couldn’t fly a plane to save their lives, turned on the devilishly cunning ‘radar evasion’ machine, used his long-range hypnotising capabilities to get the Joint Chiefs into having umpteen ‘drills’, befuddled what few interceptor aircraft there were into going sight-seeing over the Atlantic, and evaded ‘justice’ for ten years.
And you call US ‘conspiracy theorists’?
That doesn’t sound likely either. Just because you don’t like one theory, it doesn’t mean another one has to be true.
Take the “hologram planes” for instance. How can they be holograms, if another theory states they were real, but flying under remote control? Got to be one or the other, right?
In reality, neither theory is necessarily true. Indeed, none of the theories presented (officially or otherwise) has to be the entire truth.
Paul Barbara, April 4, 23:20:
– “you never condemn the weirdest, most unlikely ‘conspiracy theory’ of all – the government ‘conspiracy theory’”
Paul, you need to take off your “conspiracy theorist” binary blinkers. I have repeatedly criticised the official narrative. On the basis of Susan Lindauer’s personal testimony I have accused the CIA of criminal complicity, I have stated that I’m very suspicious about the collapse of WTC7 and that NIST should release all their data, and just up this page I have said that the “crush down then crush up” theory is inconsistent with the videos of the collapses of the Twin Towers. Over and over I have mentioned the investigations of the alleged hijackers that were obstructed from above. I have repeatedly referred to Michael Springmann’s testimony.
For the record, I think that Osama bin Laden knew nothing of 9/11 until afterwards, and that the reason the US tried to blame him is because (1) he was an important dissident to the Saudi-neocon collaboration and (2) the location of his activities gave them an excuse to invade Afghanistan.
Bobm, on April 4 at 20:53 actually claims to have hassled 9/11 eye witness Steven Evans in 2015, repeatedly and insistently messaging him via Twitter!
‘Flight Data Recorder Analysis – Last Second of Data – 09:37:44’:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
‘…This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment. For further details, please see our Technical Paper here and Press Release here outlining our findings….’
So you’re claiming a plane did actually hit the Pentagon, rather than a missile (which seems far more likely to me)?
@glenn_uk
Pilots for 9/11 truth are claiming that no plane hit the Pentagon. There is an embedded video halfway down the text which explains why. It also explains why the ‘supposed’ black-box data released to them is inconsistent with what would be expected.
Pilots for 9/11 truth have done some excellent work through FOI requests
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-102/#comment-644990
but I expect they met with some resistance regarding the Pentagon. The official story really stinks.
@ Clark April 2, 2017 at 17:18
‘The 9/11 stuff isn’t harmless either. Barry Jennings’ family were driven to conceal their location and contact details. On certain Truther videos you’ll see caption screens requesting viewers to respect the Jennings’ privacy.’
Have you ant evidence that Barry Jennings’ family were driven to conceal their location or contact details? I know when the ‘Loose Change’ people went looking for them, they had already vamoosed.
Well I’ve definitely seen a caption page on a YouTube vid requesting viewers to respect the Jennings’ privacy.
It looks like Barry Jennings died of leukaemia, and his son, Barry jr, seemed pretty frustrated about “conspiracy theorists”:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150705152850/http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=42d5dca09ed03e002d5b9e71527766f0&showtopic=14697&pid=10790192&st=40&
The YouTube vid with the privacy request must have been Dylan Avery’s, AKA “enigs” who posted this:
http://911blogger.com/node/16573
– “After locating Barry in mid 2007, Jason and I visited him and he graciously granted us an interview during a lunch break. He had agreed to grant us an interview under the conditions that we, at no time, associate his interview with his place of employment. […]
– A few months later, as the film was nearing completion, I called Barry again to touch base and see how things were going. It took him a bit to remember who I was, but as soon as he did, he began complaining about phone calls to his place of employment and that he was in danger of losing his job. He requested to have his interview pulled from Loose Change, and I honored his request.
– […]
– As I say in the end of the video, I would appreciate it if Barry could enjoy his privacy and live his life in peace”
It sounds to me as though Truthers kept calling the Office of Emergency Management and asking about Jennings, and it was causing him grief at work.
@ Clark April 5, 2017 at 01:10
Again, thanks for the information; once again this is completely new to me.
But I disagree with your conclusion ‘..It sounds to me as though Truthers kept calling the Office of Emergency Management and asking about Jennings, and it was causing him grief at work.’
It sounds much more likely that the PTB were trying to put pressure on Jenning’s, so he would disassociate himself with Avery & Co.
Avery had given his word not to associate Jennings with his workplace, and there is no evidence or reason to suspect he didn’t stand by his word.
The PTB, however, would have had full knowledge of what Jennings had told Avery (remember, intrusive surveillance of communications didn’t start only after 9/11).
Jennings’ testimony is damning, though you keep trying to dismiss it as ‘confused’.
I suggest, once more, that if the stairs had just blown up under you, and you make it back to the 8th floor, break out a window with a fire extinguisher, look out and see both Towers still standing., it would stick in your mind; especially if when you look back (as in crossing the road; you first look one way, then back the other way – if you do it right, you should then look back in the original direction before crossing the road) one of the Towers had collapsed.
There is no wiggle-room there for ‘confusion’ – his words were as clear as day, and I for one believe him.
Paul Barbara wrote – “…the PTB were trying to put pressure on Jenning’s, so he would disassociate himself with Avery & Co”
But Avery wrote – “A few months later, […] I called Barry again […]. It took him a bit to remember who I was“.
So Avery was not on Jennings’ mind, so the “PTB” hadn’t been threatening him over Avery.
You only have to listen carefully to Jennings’ various accounts to realise that he remembers lots of things, but scrambles the order in which they happened.
– “…and you make it back to the 8th floor, break out a window with a fire extinguisher”
Why did he have break a window before he could see? Because it was covered in dust. He said:
– “it was dark and very very hot. I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone”
So the electricity had failed, fires had been burning a while and one Tower was down. “Police cars on fire, buses on fire” – that was not the case before either Tower had fallen.
You keep warping the evidence towards your preferred conclusion. I chose my conclusion on the basis of the available evidence.
@ Clark April 5, 2017 at 11:52
‘…Paul Barbara wrote – “…the PTB were trying to put pressure on Jenning’s, so he would disassociate himself with Avery & Co”..’
No, Clark, what I wrote was ‘…It sounds much more likely that the PTB were trying to put pressure on Jenning’s, so he would disassociate himself with Avery & Co….’
There is a huge difference, and I’m sure you are aware of that. So a bit of bullshitting on your part?
Maybe they weren’t, I cannot know categorically.
‘…You only have to listen carefully to Jennings’ various accounts to realise that he remembers lots of things, but scrambles the order in which they happened.
– “…and you make it back to the 8th floor, break out a window with a fire extinguisher”
Why did he have break a window before he could see? Because it was covered in dust. He said:
– “it was dark and very very hot. I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone”
So the electricity had failed, fires had been burning a while and one Tower was down. “Police cars on fire, buses on fire” – that was not the case before either Tower had fallen.
You keep warping the evidence towards your preferred conclusion. I chose my conclusion on the basis of the available evidence.’
‘…Why did he have break a window before he could see? Because it was covered in dust. He said:
– “it was dark and very very hot. I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone”…’
Why did he have to break a window to be able to see? He gave the answer, which you accept: ‘..it was covered in dust. You asume the dust was outside, but the inside would be covered with dust and it would be hot if there had been explosions INSIDE WTC 7, of which the stairs were just one instance.
‘.. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone”…’
What could be clearer than that? BOTH Towers were still standing when he broke out the window.
‘…You keep warping the evidence towards your preferred conclusion. I chose my conclusion on the basis of the available evidence.’
No, Clark, it is very clearly YOU who are ‘warping the evidence’, as explained above, and a number of times in past comments. I sometimes wonder if you are ‘all there’, with continued comments like that, That part of his testimony is extremely clear, but does contradict the NIST narrative, and yours, so obviously, you cannot accept it – the poor guy must have been ‘confused’. It is YOU who are disrespecting a victim, not me.
Firstly, I fully respect the late Barry Jennings. Anyone who didn’t get freaked in circumstances like that would have to be inhuman.
I wasn’t bullshitting; I think we may be misunderstanding each other. My point was that if someone was pressuring Jennings specifically about Avery, Avery would have been on Jennings’ mind. But if Jennings was just getting grief because office staff were getting ‘phone calls asking about Jennings, Jennings would have been more likely to have forgotten about Avery.
– “You asume the dust was outside, but the inside would be covered with dust and it would be hot if there had been explosions INSIDE WTC 7”
I hadn’t thought of dust on the inside – but Jennings didn’t say the air was dusty or that he had to use his clothing as a filter or anything, and he doesn’t look particularly dusty on the TV interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI
I don’t think explosives heat the surrounding air much, but I could be wrong.
– “.. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone”
I think he was referring to one tower, and then the other, ie. at the point he was describing, WTC2 had fallen but WTC1 was still standing. On Avery’s video interview, you see Jennings look right first, then straight ahead, which would fit the positions of the buildings as seen from WTC7. He does say it was very dark, but it was a sunny day. It was the dust from the collapses that made it dark. He also said he saw buses and police cars on fire, and that wasn’t the case before the collapses.
I can’t imagine one of the towers falling without him noticing while he was looking the other way. Firstly, each collapse took over ten seconds, but more importantly the collapses were very noisy; he’d have heard, looked back and seen the collapse in progress. He never mentions the enormous dust cloud following collapse.
He confusion is obvious; for instance, notice how he cuts from his description of what he saw from the window, directly to being stuck in the building for hours. Notice how he says on one video that he was blown back to the eighth floor – being blown up two storeys, four flights of stairs with corners and landings between them, would have killed him! Note how often he forgets Hess’s presence or absence. Note that he says he was blown back, but also says he was left hanging and had to climb up. It seems to me that he was traumatised, and as a consequence struggled to make sense of his memories.
@ Clark April 5, 2017 at 00:38
Thanks for interesting link; completely new to me. It seems clear the son obviously believes it was just natural leukemia, especially as Barry Jennings’ twin brother had died of the same disease.
It seems like Barry’s wife developed a ‘mystery disease’ in 2003.
I’ve still got things to check out, but Barry Jennings dying a couple of days before Nist’s ‘Final Report’ on WTC 7 was announced is a remarkably beneficial occurrence for the government, given Barry’s evidence which, if true, gives the lie to the ‘government narrative’. Can Leukemia be induced? Yes. Maybe Barry had been battling it for some time (maybe since 9/11!), but it could be rapidly assisted by judicious use of chemicals given in the guise of ‘curing’ or ‘slowing down; leukemia if it was already present.
I am not saying that is what happened, but I certainly strongly suspect the government had a hand in his death.
I would not suggest that to the son, though.
‘Chemically induced leukemia in humans’: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1568737/
But thanks again for the link.
I went to a talk by a German nuclear physicist today re use of mini-nukes in the Twin Towers. Unfortunately, his mike wasn’t working properly, and I’m quite hard of hearing, so I missed a lot.
I’ve got links to follow up on the internet re his thesis, but it will take time to follow leads, so that will have to wait.
– “…completely new to me”
Try clearing cache and cookies, and then switching your router off and back on again to get a new IP address before you browse. If the search engine you use can identify you from cookies or IP address, it sends you the sort of results you have spent longest looking at before, preventing you from seeing more varied sources.
@ Clark April 5, 2017 at 12:33
Shows how much I know about computers – I thought you have one IP address, and it stays with you.
It depends how your Internet Service Provider run their service. Mine is “dynamic IP address”, allocated as my router starts up. I’m on ADSL over a telephone landline; such connections are often dynamic. Optical cable broadband is often “static IP address”, so restarting the cable router won’t get you a new IP address.
You can find out your current IP address by visiting this page:
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
Your IP address is displayed towards the end of the second box. Note it down, as well as the “machine name” (as the page recommends), then restart your router and see if either or both have changed. That site can also check various privacy and security settings for you.
Killing Jennings would only have raised suspicion, as indeed his death actually did.
There was no point killing him because (1) his testimony was confused and self-contradictory (I’m not blaming him; he was obviously traumatised by the events of the day), (2) the main “explosion” he witnessed was confirmed by Hess, and easily explained by the collapse of WTC1 – even if that explanation was false, it was still cooler than killing him, (3) his testimony had already been released, and (4) explosions hours before collapse do not explain 2.25 seconds of free-fall; for that you need lots of nearly simultaneous explosions which would initiate collapse immediately.
@ Clark April 5, 2017 at 02:48
We’ve gone over a lot of this before. Yes, Barry Jennings’ testimony was already out, but he had been cowed into not repeating his most contentious testimony, as was shown by his BBC ‘testimony’.
His testimony about the Towers both being still standing after the Floors exploded in WTC 7, and about walking over dead bodies, had not, to my knowledge (I’d appreciate any evidence to the contrary), been aired in the MSM.
But with the NIST ‘Final Report’ coming out, there would have been renewed pressure by the Truthers and their radio and TV servicers to get him to repeat his original testimony, and he may well have done so – thus,safer for the PTB ‘narrative’ if Bbarry had an ‘accident’, or better still, ‘died of natural causes’. You really underestimate the number of people that have been murdered by government agencies, or on their behalf, because they posed a serious ‘potential’ threat.
If you read ‘Hit List’ and ‘Dead Wrong’, both by Belzer and Wayne, it would help you understand just how frequently people who have information potentially damaging to the PTB have ‘accidents’, die of ‘natural causes’ at times ‘convenient’ for the PTB, get ‘suicided’ or just plain murdered.
@ Clark April 5, 2017 at 02:48
‘…(4) explosions hours before collapse do not explain 2.25 seconds of free-fall; for that you need lots of nearly simultaneous explosions which would initiate collapse immediately.’
No, they do not explain it, but are anything but incompatible with it. You must have seen the video showing how the cut important supports before an implosion to weaken, but still leave the building perfectly safe to carry on placing whatever explosives are required, before they eventually blow it at their leisure.
And stairs are one of the structures they frequently weaken, either by cutter charges or, apparently in the case of WTC 7, with explosives.
– “…but still leave the building perfectly safe to carry on placing whatever explosives are required, before they eventually blow it at their leisure”
Yes, it’s not safe to use angle-grinders, creating copious sparks and vibration, in a building rigged with explosives. But if you’re doing it all with explosives, there’s no need to weaken stairways hours before demolition. In any case, I doubt you can reliably weaken but not cut steel structure with explosives.
PB: “Have you ant evidence that Barry Jennings’ family were driven to conceal their location or contact details? I know when the ‘Loose Change’ people went looking for them, they had already vamoosed.”
Doesn’t that rather sound as if you’ve answered your own question?
@ glenn_uk April 5, 2017 at 01:07
No. it does not. But Clark’s link goes a long way to explaining it, and more; I haven’t fully explored it and checked it out.
As you appear interested you could do a lot worse than to check out Clark’s link. It is very interesting.
They definitely skimped on the Twin Towers, as this video shows:
WTC: Operations-Control Center/Refrigeration Plant/Elevators/Power Supply/Window Washing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRuNgZo5evo
Or maybe not!!!
Paul, that’s an advert, marketing and promotional material, PR! Just how gullible are you?
Shame they spent so much on luxury and convenience features and skimped on the frame, floor assemblies, and emergency and evacuation facilities. Typically capitalist. The vid shows the lightweight floor trusses, the Tower’s Achilles’ Heel. It also shows how much heavy equipment was balanced up in the air. People who worked there reported that on windy days computer towers would fall over and coffee would slop out of cups. The floors would creak and could be felt moving. Without the 10,000 or so viscous dampers, occupants would have become seasick.
If they’d included a bridge between the Towers at the top, a lot more people could have escaped.
@ Clark April 5, 2017 at 02:34
The Towers were expected to sway with the wind to an extent, indeed they moved less went struck by whatever struck them, than they did in high winds. Yes, I believe dampers were in place to stop seasickness.
A bridge between the two structures would have enabled a lot more people to escape; if the PTB had sent a helicopter to blow out the locked doors to the roof, a lot of people could have been rescued by helicopter from the roofs.
But like Pearl Harbour, and the Lusitania, the PTB wanted lots of casualties for their Problem, Reaction, Solution strategy.
That’s also why they told people to go back into WTC 2 when they evacuated after WTC 1 was ‘attacked’.
If it was so obvious WTC 1 would collapse, as you seem to think (but none of the firefighters did) then that looks extremely suspicious.
Yes, the designers knew how much the Twin Towers would sway in the wind. Presumably that’s why there couldn’t be a bridge.
I think I’ve read that decisions not to land helicopters on the roof were made by the pilots of police helicopters, because there was too much smoke to see properly.
The decision to keep people in their offices in the other tower was standard procedure, I think from after the previous bombing, because during evacuation the large number of people outside had impeded others from exiting quickly enough. But various sources claim that the intelligence agencies knew the targets in advance, and at the very minimum it was known that several aircraft had been hijacked. WTC management were not warned.
City engineers at the scene were monitoring degradation of the buildings and did warn of the danger of collapse, and the evacuation of emergency responders was ordered, but their radios (“handy-talkies”) were inadequate (insufficient channels) and many never received the order.
@ Clark April 5, 2017 at 10:04
Now, THAT sounds like the PTB WANTed mass casualties (like the Lusitania and Pearl Harbour), not issuing a warning.
April Gallop also says no alarm was given at the Pentagon before the ‘attack’; and that as she exited through the hole, there was NO aircraft debris, and NO fire! So the fire we saw afterwards, with the firefighter spraying, must have been initiated AFTER the original event. That knda looks strange, doesn’t it? NO fire (otherwise how could she have got out through the hole, yet similar ‘aircraft’ that were to alleged to have hit the Towers caused them to collapse. Why wasn’t the fuel dumped inside the Pentagon, like they said happened with the Towers?
– “THAT sounds like the PTB WANTed mass casualties”
Susan Lindauer said that Fuisz (of the CIA) knew in advance that New York was a target. ‘Course the CIA never tell the government everything, do they? And the CIA is internally compartmentalised on the basis of “need to know”.
Sorry, I know that’s not much help.
Absolute nonsense. It is why nobody wants to debate with you. You continually spout on about “lightweight floor trusses” “dampers” and now your theory for a “bridge at the top” between two buildings designed to sway in the wind. You really need to think things through and stop swallowing the NIST garbage. Start thinking about how and where they planted the nuclear bombs that brought the towers down. There might be clues in the underground command centre in Paul’s video link. Ask yourself what was below that. Where did the sewage go? What maintenance access was there to the system that pumped water from Hudson? Was that same access used to plant the weapons of mass destruction. Newton tells you why your pancake, top down, gradual superfast progression, progressive collapse or whatever you want to call it cannot work.
The lightweight floor trusses as you call them were designed in a similar way to cranes with triangular supports to give them extra strength. As we know they take a lot to destroy them. Read this to see what happens to cranes.
https://wordpress.com/stats/day/johnplatinumgoss.wordpress.com
They would twist and turn and warp but they would not fall apart. As they twisted and warped they would create resistance to any action from above (opposite reaction) and their mangled structures on top of one another would pile high into the sky were it possible for the ‘lightweight floors’ above to penetrate those below – which it is not. Instead there had to be a cavity into which all this material fell whereas the concrete was disintegrated into powder which could most likely only be done by a nuclear device. When you, and engineer Kempe, get it into your heads that the WTC1, WTC2 and Building 7 could not have come down from above without weakening of the base structures below you will have a chance of passing practical physics and engineering.
Till then the real engineers who you’ve driven away are never going to come back.
– “Newton tells you why your pancake, top down, gradual superfast progression, progressive collapse or whatever you want to call it cannot work”
Newton was a damn site more specific than you are, John. Please state or link to the relationship that proves the collapses were impossible. Is it the following? Please answer:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
You keep claiming to be an engineer. Please respond like one if you can, or stop misleading readers by claiming relevant engineering expertise if you can’t.. Your blathering reminds me of the claims made of the Titanic.
– “Instead there had to be a cavity into which all this material fell”
There was, and you just referred to it yourself; the sub-levels.
The cores stood longest, ruling out destruction of the Twin Towers from below.
“The cores stood longest, ruling out destruction of the Twin Towers from below.”
Even that is inaccurate or pure speculation. Nobody could see for the nuclear powder thrown up what stood the longest or what was happening at the base. And just because videos show one section of the core that remained slightly longer than other sections means no more than some people surviving in one part of the basement.
You appear to be fixated with Chandler. It is Newtonian physics as expressed in Appendix A of this paper.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html
Think like an engineer instead of a Jack-of-all-trades. 😀
– “Even that is inaccurate or pure speculation”
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvAv-114bwM with reference to my notes linked below, with time references to the best video images of the core remnants:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-107/#comment-661497
– “Nobody could see for the nuclear powder thrown up”
The majority of dust emission occurred as the collapses hit bottom, NOT at initiation of collapse. Judy Wood’s “Billiard Balls” argument also assumes pulverisation throughout the collapses, in contradiction to observation. Her assumption that pulverisation occurred preferentially to dislocation of floor assemblies leads her to ignore conservation of momentum, leading to the very long collapse times she postulates. It’s total bollocks, and I strongly suspect she knows that.
Clark I’ve seen the Ketcham video. In fact I think I linked to it. Like he said it did not fall as would be expected and should not have fallen ‘symetrically into its own footprint’. Let me try to explain, but I get tired of explaining and am forever in fear that the nonsense Killick sketch might make yet another appearance which is why I did not take up the Chandler challenge. 😀
Judy Wood’s Appendix A is a mathematical evaluation floor by floor of what should have happened if it could have happened – but of course engineers know that it could not. Ketcham knows it. Engineers like those Alan Hart spoke to from the biggest construction company in the world, 3,000 Engineers and Architects for 9/11 truth, Newtonian physicists, and most of the commenters on this thread (including myself) can see it. Yet Clark Killick, the lone caped crusader together with his batman, steam-engine stoker and locomotive engineer, Kempe, stand firmly in defiance of these truthers poisoning the minds of readers of this thread (who I suggest are very few and diminishing).
I realise I am a part of this problem encouraging you to pursue your mission with the passion of a lay-preacher. So I’ll take a rest. It will take time. It has already taken time for you to accept that there were explosions (other than fire-extinguishers going off) so there is hope. One day you might be able to look back at this thread and say to yourself. Did I really write that? I hope so. Adios Amigos.
– “Judy Wood’s Appendix A is a mathematical evaluation floor by floor of what should have happened if it could have happened”
No it’s not. It assumes that when one falling floor assembly hits a stationary floor assembly, the falling one pulverises itself in the process of (very gently) decoupling the stationary one from its supports.
There is absolutely NO justification for this assumption. On the contrary, it would take far more energy to pulverise a floor assembly than to decouple a floor assembly from the vertical frame, so decoupling would occur long before pulverisation had completed. And why wouldn’t they pulverise equally (need I remind you of Newton’s law of action and reaction)?
Wood’s theory also contradicts the observations, because only a relatively small proportion of the dust was generated as the Towers fell; the vast majority welled up as the collapses hit bottom, as would be expected since that’s when most of the kinetic energy was released.
The momentum calculations Wood presents are mathematically correct, but her physical model is utterly wrong. Seeing as she’s highly qualified, she must know this, so I believe that she has presented a “trick answer”. You, John, seem to have fallen for it, despite it contradicting Newton’s third law, which you constantly cite!
(…copious ad-hominen requiring no response…)
– “…readers of this thread (who I suggest are very few and diminishing)”
This thread is always in the “Currently Popular Posts” lists, usually near the top. But observation of evidence doesn’t seem to be one of your strong points, John.
– “It has already taken time for you to accept that there were explosions…”
Eh? I always accepted there were explosions! Fire causes certain things to explode.
– “One day you might be able to look back at this thread and say to yourself. Did I really write that? I hope so“
Ah. So you’d actually prefer that the Twin Towers were deliberately demolished. Just as I thought.
The link I gave was the wrong one regarding cranes. This is it.
https://johnplatinumgoss.wordpress.com/2017/02/06/crates-and-cranes-911/
Did Dr Judy Wood not say, “The towers did not collapse, they went away”? In other words all this talk about building strengths, tower cranes and beer crate towers is irrelevant.
Has anyone explained the cylindrical holes carved vertically through some of the adjacent buildings yet?
Sections of the Twin Towers’ perimeters impacted the roofs of the lower buildings. The holes were roughly circular because impact holes are roughly circular, and they were roughly vertical cylinders because the perimeter sections were falling almost vertically. Very, very mundane.
Bullet holes, stones through windows – the faster the projectile and the closer the angle of impact is to ninety degrees, the closer the resulting hole is to being circular.
Here’s where the Towers went:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3b/20050601212330%21September_17_2001.jpg
Zoom in; you can see vehicles etc. to get an idea of the scale; there’s an enormous quantity of wreckage. Note that the perimeter mostly fell outwards, but the debris pile is higher within the original footprint where the perimeter contained and channelled the debris of the internal collapse. The debris also extended down into the sub-levels.
“Just how gullible are you?”
I think with your history you really have a nerve to say that.
You can’t tell the difference between promotional material and technical specifications? And you call yourself an engineer???
Also it was quite a hurtful thing to say to someone who provided a video of the inner-workings of the WTC which I had not seen before. All you could see in it was ‘lightweight floor trusses’ because you thought it helped your flimsy case. That and the opportunity to take a dig at Paul.
Regarding my going to a talk by a German nuclear physicist yesterday, I have explained his mike didn’t work properly, and my hearing is bad, so I missed most of it. But I did get the strong impression he knows what he is talking about, and that he has a number of good points. Here is his website, and you can even download a 133-page book (draft) free (It’s called ‘Solving the [radioactive] riddle of 9/11 – a simple explanation of GROUND ZERO’. I expect he will eventually publish it in printed form):
http://911history.de/aaannxyz_ch01_en.html
Paul, thanks for that. I’ll read it when I get time. I hope he can tell us something about the tritium found in the aftermath.
@ Clark April 5, 2017 at 12:26
In view of the fact that you seem to minimise the chances of the PTB ordering a ‘hit’ on ‘troublesome’ people who expose, or are thought to be a possible exposer of incriminating evidence against government perps, check the following out. Unfortunately, as you would see if you read ‘Hit List’ and Dead Wrong’, both by Wayne and Belzer, these hits are very real and all too frequent:
GARY WEBB – PULITZER PRIZE WINNER, AUTHOR OF DARK ALLIANCE CIA-DRUG SERIES DEAD OF REPORTED SUICIDE:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/121304_gary_webb.shtml
Webb ‘Suicide’ Looking More Like Murder:
http://www.rense.com/general60/move.htm
Evidence Begins To Indicate Gary Webb Was Murdered:
https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2004/141204webbmurdered.htm
Former kingpin Rick Ross talks Gary Webb’s death, C.I.A. complicity, and new doc ‘Freeway: Crack in the System’:
http://www.clatl.com/news/article/13080495/former-kingpin-rick-ross-talks-gary-webbs-death-cia-complicity-and-new-doc-freeway-crack-in-the-system
“Kill the Messenger” Resurrects Gary Webb, Journalist Maligned for Exposing CIA Ties to Crack Trade:
https://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/9/kill_the_messenger_resurrects_gary_webb
Gary Webb, 49, Journalist Who Wrote Disputed Articles, Is Dead:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/obituaries/gary-webb-49-journalist-who-wrote-disputed-articles-is-dead.html?_r=0
The latter NY Times obit shows just how low the MSM has descended; this is even more apparent when you read Gary Webb’s book ‘Dark Alliance’ (1998/9), which I have just re-read.
Do you really believe that Gary Webb committed suicide?
I haven’t yet followed any of your links regarding Gary Webb (I’ve been busy and I’m having trouble keeping up) but I already knew his death was declared a suicide despite him having two gunshots in the head. Obviously, I suspect murder.
I’m not under the illusion that powerful forces never have people killed; for instance, I think Dr David Kelly was almost certainly murdered. It’s just that Barry Jennings wasn’t a threat, and even if he was, killing him would only have increased the threat.
@ Clark April 6, 2017 at 00:13
‘…It’s just that Barry Jennings wasn’t a threat, and even if he was, killing him would only have increased the threat…’
It’s a matter of opinion – I most certainly perceive him as having been a major threat to the NIST and government narrative. So do Dylan Avery and many other Truthers.
Killing him would not appreciably have increased the risk, if he had had no idea they wanted him out of the way, and nor did his son. They both seemingly accepted he was ill with Leukemia, so seem to have had no suspicions (clearly neither of them were cut out to be ‘conspiracy theorists’).
Remember stories about agency rivalries in Ukraine. Is there something like that now in US? Are the photos released a consequence of a turf war having said that do they not shoe at least some plane material?
Clark, I note that you have changed position on WTC7: So if you conclude it was intentionally demolished how when and over what time span do you think it was rigged up?
By the way I have no conclusions.
I’m still undecided about WTC7, so I haven’t changed my position. If it was deliberately destroyed, Barry Jennings’ testimony is most unlikely to be evidence for it.
On balance, I favour the possibility that it was deliberately destroyed, probably by military demolition experts, work commencing after the collapse of either WTC1 or WTC2, and that the operation was classified. My reasoning for this concerns the safety exclusion zone that was set up around WTC7. The fire-figherts were very anxious to search in that area for comrades caught in the collapses of the Twin Towers; indeed, testimony indicates that they were almost mutinous about it. The exclusion zone could not have been maintained indefinitely; there must have been immense pressure from the fire department to have it brought down.
If I’m right, I would very much like to know who insisted that the operation be classified, and what excuse they gave.
Searching court records, and reports, of the WTC7 insurance court cases may reveal the time at which WTC7 was declared a total loss.
Thanks for your thoughts. I have looked but not found any comparable collapses from fire alone. I don’t know how quickly one could rig up a building for a safe collapse, but why would one. If it were damaged by other collapsing buildings legitimately brought down by planes then there would be no need for secrecy, nor urgency. What other buildings have been brought down in controlled take down because of fire damage on the same day as the fire, which caused the damage. I suspect there might ordinarily be an interval of months. If there were structural damage and it had to be sooner then why the need for secrecy?
How long do military engineer take to perform demolition? Hours, I suspect, judging by some operations I have read about – information seems scant. The military even perform covert demolition within enemy territory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_Demolition_Team
Yes. That a demolition be safe was not a requirement under the circumstances.
I agree; there was no legitimate need for secrecy that I can think of.
The military don’t do demolition, they blow things up and bomb them.
Try searching “military demolition” (or even read my link above):
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=military+demolition
Combat Engineer – British Army Website
Combat engineer – Wikipedia
Images for military demolition
Military engineering – Wikipedia
FM 3-34.214 (FM 5-250) EXPLOSIVES AND DEMOLITIONS
– info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-Explosives.pdf
About 18 million results…
A Truther video:
“9 11 John Kerry admits that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbReTl3Uin0
Maybe someone forgot to tell him it was classified!
Maybe no one told him because it was classified!
Wow. When was that John Kerry interview. He says something so controversial as a dry matter of fact. Where was the interview? Did he then retract it? Has this not been reported?
Clark I wonder why your critics didn’t dig this one out. They ought to doff their caps anyway.
Fwl, I know nothing about that Kerry Q&A session beyond the information in the video itself; the sign in front of the podium reads “Book People Presents”, and the closing caption screen reads “Filmed by Austin 9 11 Truth Now – prisonplanet.com” – Prison Planet being an Alex Jones site / Infowars offshoot. Searching “Austin 9 11 Truth Now” might yield something.
To be fair, the questioners ask about WTC7 specifically, but Kerry replies about buildings other than the Twin Towers in general, claiming to not really know and sounding quite genuine about that – and he isn’t a Republican and wasn’t part of the Bush administration. Outside Truther circles WTC7 is not well known, probably because no one was killed by its collapse.
I found that video months ago; I think it was in YouTube’s side panel when I was watching something else. I always try to find contradictory / debunking evidence, plus debunking of debunking etc, and occasionally follow links just because they look interesting – trying to get a balanced view, but there’s so much material.
April 6, 07:36, you wrote: “Thanks for your thoughts” – it’s always a pleasure to answer you because you’re polite and seem open-minded.
Fw, 20:32: – “I wonder why your critics didn’t dig this one out”
I think most people have never heard of “filter bubbles” and assume that confirmation bias doesn’t apply to them, so a lot of the time they keep going over the same material as they’ve seen before. “Truther” sites tend to form self-referential and thus self-reinforcing systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
It’s not enough to realise that the mass “news” media is propagandistic. All media suffers from bias, as does every one of us individually, and no one has a monopoly on the truth.
Thanks Clark. I can’t begin to think that Kerry would have been oblivious to the significance of his comments. I agree one should proceed by exploring counter views and seeking to challenge one’s own assumptions.
– “I can’t begin to think that Kerry would have been oblivious to the significance of his comments”
It depends how long after 9/11 that Q&A session occurred. Certainly if he said it recently it would seem entirely dishonest. If it was within months or even a year or two of 9/11, before the original Truth Movement had gained much momentum, it could be completely genuine. The video does look quite old; pre-digital.
@ fwl April 5, 2017 at 22:54
Good question. You can’t rig a big building like that for controlled demolition in a few hours.
In this (highly speculative) theory, I’m figuring that my supposed military demolition experts did better than they expected. They could be confident of bringing the building down, but not of a nice, neat fall. They happened to get lucky and WTC7 hit just two other buildings as it descended.
@ Clark April 6, 2017 at 13:26
Yeh, a lot of folk ‘got lucky’ on 9/11; all except the victims and their loved ones, the taxpayers, assorted innocent victims all over the Middle East, and anyone who yearns for peace and justice.
Lots of Military and civilians got promoted, arms, oil and contractors rubbed their hands together, and the Banksters raised their Champagne (or is it ‘Spirit Cooking?) glasses.
And ‘conspiracy theorists’ and trolls got a new lease of life.
Very true, Paul. That the attacks encountered so little resistance seems far too lucky not to raise suspicion, and the promotions were entirely contradictory to the proposed explanation of institutional incompetence.
Clark, given the secret, confidential and privileged docs in WTC7 events of the day would have justified an exclusion zone in any event just to stop walk ins if nothing else.
True, but that would not have diminished pressure from fire-fighters wishing to search for trapped colleagues.
The fire-fighters and police were really pissed off. Their radios had proven utterly inadequate, and promises about the Twin Towers’ ability to withstand aircraft impacts, made by PR companies to counter concerns at the time of construction and accepted for decades, had proven out as lies in the worst possible way; hundreds of dedicated first-responders killed in seconds.
The City had a mutiny brewing.
@ Clark April 6, 2017 at 13:40
Pity they, and the people living around, or working in the vicinity of the WTC area, didn’t mutiny. They had very good cause to do so. Not only cleanup personnel (some of whom were told not to wear safety gear so as not to alarm workers and local residents), but local workers and local residents – who returned to their dust-covered homes and cleaned up themselves, and sent their kids back to school in the dangerous environment – took the EPA’s lie that ‘the air was safe to breathe’ at face value.
‘EPA misled public on 9/11 pollution / White House ordered false assurances on air quality, report says’:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/EPA-misled-public-on-9-11-pollution-White-House-2560252.php
‘9/11 Victims’ Lawyers Blast Ground Zero Toxic Air Lies in Court’:
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_42.htm
Shows how much the White House cared about ordinary citizens, and how the head of the EPA would lie at the White House’s demand.
I don’t know the result of the court case; I’ll search another time.
Hey,
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on this. It can be very difficult to process this kind of tragedy. I think many people are still asking questions about what happened that day!
Best,
Dennis
And they are jolly well right to keep asking questions, though the government and MSM will never answer them.
Request for help:
The video I posted above has prompted my curiosity about John Kerry with regard to the devastation of Iraq 2003 onwards. I’d appreciate any interesting links, but links from or supported by mainstream sources would be particularly helpful.
In partial answer to my own question, I found this very detailed article by Robert Parry:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/14/whats-the-matter-with-john-kerry-2/
I have increasing respect for Parry. He seems to have maintained and further developed his contacts in Washington since his reporting of the Iran-Contras operation.
Do readers here respect journalist John Pilger? Or is he regarded as part of the Conspiracy, too?
@ Clark April 10, 2017 at 11:04
I have tremendous respect for him; unfortunately, he is blinkered on 9/11!
I don’t think Pilger is ‘blinkered’ on 9/11. The following transcript is from an interview he gave at an Anarchist Book Fair in London in 2010:
‘I think there is a lot of evidence that certain elements in the Bush administration, whether by intent or by or by their own arrogant incompetence, I don’t know, let things happen. I think there is enough evidence to…
We know the senior FBI people who gave warnings right throughout 2001. We know about the extraordinary inactivity by the NORAD aircraft on the day of September 11th. We know that Cheney was in charge of the White House on that day.
I think the most plausible is the “let it happen”, now at what stage it was let happen, I don’t know, I don’t know. But certainly that seems to me, the most plausible.
https://soundcloud.com/9-11-truth-news/john-pilger-on-911
I suspect he doesn’t really want to go there because it would destroy in an instant a reputation he has taken years to build in the teeth of fierce criticism and hostility.
I really don’t hold that against him.
@ KingofWelshNoir April 10, 2017 at 20:44
Thanks for that info; I’ll spread it around.
John Pilger is a great journalist, it’s a shame there are so few like him.
I really respect Pilger. What’s your point?
@ John Goss April 10, 2017 at 20:43
Any decent people respect Pilger. His integrity is not in question by anyone commenting.
His film “Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror” was his opinion in 2003. I really do not know what his present opinion is about the demolition of the World Trade Centre or even whether he has read Richard Gage’s paper on the flaws in the official account. Remember he is a journalist. He relies on expert opinion. I would be very surprised if he did not think an investigation into the bringing down of world trade centre buildings was necessary in the light of current knowledge.
In 2004 John Pilger wrote the following about the 9/11 Commission Report:
– Flying into Philadelphia recently, I spotted the Kean congressional report on 11 September from the 9/11 Commission on sale at the bookstalls. “How many do you sell?” I asked. “One or two,” was the reply. “It’ll disappear soon.” Yet, this modest, blue-covered book is a revelation. Like the Butler report in the UK, which detailed all the incriminating evidence of Blair’s massaging of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq, then pulled its punches and concluded nobody was responsible, so the Kean report makes excruciatingly clear what really happened, then fails to draw the conclusions that stare it in the face. It is a supreme act of normalising the unthinkable. This is not surprising, as the conclusions are volcanic.
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20061129185617/www.newstatesman.com/200411150006
I’m reminded of Craig’s current post:
– You would never guess it from the media but Lord Ashcroft’s latest major polling effort strips bare the entire lie about a Tory and Unionist bandwagon rolling in Scotland.
You would never guess it from Lord Ashcroft’s Tory agenda-driven report of the findings either. […]. No paid media journalist would ever dream of reading more than the executive summary of the report, and certainly would never comb through the data tables, which contain the actual information on which the report is just a gloss.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/04/media-tory-lies-stripped-bare-ashcroft-poll/
…and this is so often the case. Newspaper headlines are written by the editorial team, not by the journalist who wrote the article, and very often you’ll find that the headline directly contradicts the actual content of the report.
Clark that was as you say 2004. It is quite possible for anyone who is not an engineer to accept what at the time might have been plausible findings in line with MSM reports but today we know there is so much wrong with it thanks to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Engineers and Architects for 9/11 Truth and those who did not swallow the lie. The Kean Congressional Report was called the Final Report on 9/11 because that is what they hoped it would be. Pilger was not to know it was a pack of lies. We’ve all been sold lies by MSM including WMDS, death of Dr David Kelly, MH17 (ongoing) Charles de Menenez and others.
Pilger had obviously read the report. Have you? Don’t you think you should?
I’d like you to learn how propaganda actually works. I’d also like you to learn how conspirology actually helps to reinforce propaganda, by creating a morass for those who deviate from the mainstream path of carefully cultivated images.
@ Clark April 10, 2017 at 23:58
As David Ray Griffin wrote, that report was great – fiction. But some of us are a bit too busy, and a bit too smart, to read 9/11 fiction. Frankly, I would rather read the ‘Beano’.
“Newspaper headlines are written by the editorial team, not by the journalist who wrote the article, and very often you’ll find that the headline directly contradicts the actual content of the report.”
Most of the big newspapers have headline editors, usually those with a flare for catching people’s attention. Often they contradict or at least present a tangential summary of the content. Talking about reading actual content have you seen Gage’s paper?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h9o-CXBEgI&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH1sjoLYRFihJdxG6OsEZbKF
I would still like to hear your opposition to it because little has changed in your comments so I can only think you disagree with it.
A paper on YouTube? Can’t you link to the paper?
Sorry Clark you probably don’t understand the meaning of a paper in academic terms. What happens is that some organisation (usually a university department) puts out a request for papers (often by email from a body to which scholars, graduates and post-graduates are affiliated. It is known as a “Call for Papers”. Often these are published afterwards but not always. They are however presented by those selected and usually have a keynote speaker (I expect Richard Gage was the keynote speaker in the video I linked). A typical call for papers can look like this.
https://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/cfp/2017/01/26/teaching-the-18th-century-novel-tips-texts-and-techniques
I get regular calls for papers. My own area of expertise is the long eighteenth century with specific interests in literature and papermaking. When published papers may appear in academic journals like this.
http://ejournals.org.uk/bjll/vIiIpdfs.html
So did you take a look at Gage’s presented paper?
Richard Gage Mr. Goss?
https://debamboozled.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/2014-05-30-real-whistleblowers.png
AE911Truth vs Dr. Judy Wood
IF YOU FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, AND IN ALL PROBABILITY, RICHARD GAGE AND ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH IS A GOVERNMENT FUNDED DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN MEANT TO MOLD PUBLIC OPINION USING A TAX-EXEMPT NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION AS ITS COVER.
“When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” – Amicus Solo (Latin for “a lone friend”)
If Richard Gage is using AE911Ttruth’s funds to buy Dr. Wood’s book, and Richard Gage is suppressing Dr. Wood’s work, one must conclude that the prime directive of AE911Truth is to suppress the evidence. Mr. Gage cannot refute the overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence contained in Dr. Wood’s book but only misrepresent it (i.e. promote disinformation about it). Science is not determined by popular opinion, but a psyop is. Referring to the sum of 2+3=5 as “a view” or as “an opinion” or “a theory” is how cover-ups work. It creates doubt where there is no doubt. Humanity has awoken. Those who are worthy and willing to open their eyes to the truth will read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood.
Richard Gage and other Liars for 9/11 Truth
http://tinyurl.com/911liars
Image of check from Richard Gage for Dr. Judy Wood Book
http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/Jefffolkman/RichardGageCheckForDrJudyWoodBook_zps7cb14ab3.jpg
Form 990 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9-11 TRUTH INC, Part I Summary, 1.) mission statement
Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate (some) scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, (not all 7, just 3 of the buildings) calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice. (Except Dr. Judy Wood)
Form 990 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9-11 TRUTH INC, Schedule A, Part II, Section A
from 2008 to 2012 AE911Truth income was $1.365 million!!!
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/AE911%20Tax%20Return%20-%2026-1532493_990_201212.pdf
If Mr. Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive his supporters and the American people by claiming to present the best “scientific forensic evidence”, only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a scientist or researcher only presented the evidence that supports their hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered their hypothesis, they could be stripped of their professional license or degree for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration.
Theory, speculation, and belief are not necessary to understand that a type of directed energy was used on 9/11, rather, only a detailed study of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is necessary. This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 self proclaimed researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then begin researching to see if it was consistent with the evidence. Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 “research”, including the unscientific ‘9/11 Commission Report’. After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as ‘directed energy weapons’ (DEW). It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name a specific weapon technology or location, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make.
This download is the Foreword and book review of “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” by Eric Larsen, Professor Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice 1971 – 2006 (35 years), plus the Author’s Preface.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Where%20Did%20The%20Towers%20Go%20-%20Dr%20Judy%20Wood.pdf
Those of us who have read Dr. Wood’s book can give at least 10 reasons that rule out the theory by “AE911trutherd” that welding material destroyed the WTC. How many can you list ? Hint: the bottom of page 45, the top of page 171, the diagrams on page 81 and 84, the diagram at the bottom of page 11, and of course pages 122 to 127. The list is endless, actually.
By reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, you know from the EVIDENCE that the Twin Towers turned to dust in mid-air never hitting the ground.
*Bombs don’t do that.
*Thermite does not do that.
*Thermate does not do that.
*Nano-enhanced thermite does not do that.
*Nano-thermite does not do that.
*New-and-improved super-duper mini-micro-nano thermite does not do that.
*Firecrackers do not do that.
*Fire does not do that.
*Nukes do not do that.
*Megga nukes do not do that.
*Milli-nukes do not do that.
*Mini-nukes do not do that.
*Nano-nukes cannot do that.
*New-and-improved super-duper invisible shock free nukes cannot do that.
*A wrecking ball cannot do that.
*A slingshot cannot do that.
*Missiles cannot do that.
We know this because we know those things above involve Kinetic Energy and/or Thermal Energy and we know that the “dustification” was done without Kinetic Energy and without Thermal Energy. That is, “dustification” was not done with high heat (Thermal Energy) nor with some form of Kinetic Energy (wrecking ball, projectile, gravity collapse). The building was not cooked to death nor was it beaten to death. So Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) did not destroy the buildings nor did Thermal Energy Weapons (TEW) destroy the buildings. But we know that Energy was Directed somehow (and controlled within fairly precise boundaries) to cause the building to turn to dust in mid air. That is, some kind of (cold) Directed Energy that was used as a weapon (cDEW) had to have done this. Energy was directed and manipulated within the material such that it came apart without involving high heat (fire, welding materials such as thermite) and without having something fly through the air and hit it (bullets, missile, bombs, wrecking ball, a giant hammer, or many micro hammers)
If this technology can manipulate energy to do something like this, it can also be manipulated to provide us with “free energy” (i.e. “off the grid”). Simply by looking at the cover of Dr. Wood’s book you can realize there must be a technology that can do this. This is evidence that such technology does exist. This is evidence that a technology capable of providing “free energy” (“off the grid”) exists. The whole world witnessed this which means the whole world can know that “free-energy technology” exists. This realization will change the world. This is probably the biggest reason why there is so much effort spent misrepresenting, distorting, and suppressing Dr. Wood’s research.
Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of “9/11 Truthers” verses “The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence.
Richard Gage is NOT a qualified forensic scientist. Dr. Judy Wood IS a qualified forensic scientist. AE911Truth is calling for a new investigation. This implies an admission that they are NOT qualified to conduct such an investigation of what happened. Otherwise, why are they calling for a new investigation instead of conducting one themselves — unless the intention is to knowingly distract its members and others away from the new investigation that has already been conducted? AE911Truth wants a new investigation? They already have one. It’s contained in a book called “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” Why is AE911Truth suppressing it? AE911Truth cannot lobby Congress. They are a 501( c )3 and are prohibited from lobbying Congress. Why didn’t AE911Truth submit their so-called “thermite evidence” to NIST? – Oh, that’s right. It’s a federal crime to defraud the government. Why hasn’t AE911Truth filed a Federal qui tam case? Because they haven’t blown the whistle on anything and they have no evidence and it is past the statute of limitation. So, why didn’t they support Dr. Wood’s Federal qui tam case that was filed instead of banning members who mentioned it? * — I guess they really didn’t want such a case to go forward. So they want “respect and compassion for all people” except for those named “Dr. Judy Wood.”
AE911truth first opened their website about 3.5 weeks AFTER Dr. Wood submitted her Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST. She was the first to submit an RFC that blew the whistle on the contractors for the NIST report. Can you say “damage control” ? Then she filed a federal qui tam case that could have blown this whole case wide open, including putting people under oath – if there were enough supporters. Guess what? It became a policy in AE911Truth to ban those who discussed the work of Dr. Wood in an honest manor. ** Since Richard Gage, founder & CEO of AE911truth, bought Dr. Wood’s book in the spring of 2011 and read it, he can no longer use “plausible deniability” as a defense. Mr. Gage is knowingly leading people away from the truth about 9/11 and using AE911Truth funds to accomplish this task. So leading people away from the truth must be the mission of AE911Truth. How else could he justify using AE911Truth funds to buy this book? Who funds AE911Truth? Donations through the donation drives on his site have dried up. However, donating creates a psychological hold on the donor and they are less likely to leave the organization or question Mr. Gage. Dr. Wood is a teacher and promotes independent thinking. Perhaps this is why she does not ask for donations on her website or conduct membership drives for a “truth club” to keep everyone in lockstep, where members are issued a list of talking points to focus on so that they don’t go looking for the truth. Dr. Wood is just one person. Richard Gage brags about having a large membership in lockstep with him. So why is he so concerned about just ONE person and radiates such anger at Dr. Wood? The truth is powerful and it emerges through independent thought.
The scientific method, as it came into being during the Enlightenment period, is a method of thought known as empiricism or as the empirical method. Under the terms of empiricism, all conclusions are, must, and can be drawn from observable evidence and from observable evidence only. Evidence must precede any and every conclusion to be drawn from it. Then, if sound logic governs in the relationship between evidence and the conclusion drawn from it, that conclusion will be irrefutable
Scientists, as all know or should know, proceed in their thinking not according to belief or desired outcome but according solely and only to what the empirical evidence they have gathered, studied, and observed allows them to conclude or makes it inevitable for them to conclude.
This is why Dr. Wood’s work is irrefutable. She only presents evidence and an analysis of that evidence. There is no use for a theory in forensic science. Either you know something or you don’t. That is why those in charge of a cover up don’t want people to look at the evidence in Dr. Wood’s book. Dr. Wood does not ask you to believe her. She only wants you to believe yourself and think for yourself and look at the evidence yourself and not argue about opinions of theories of speculation of ideas. That is what keeps a cover up in place. Those of us who have read Dr. Wood’s book know this to be true.
On 9/11 over a half mile of vertical building height, containing nearly 150 football fields of floor space, was reduced to a near-level field of dust and debris, where rescue workers walked horizontally or rappelled into empty caverns to look for survivors. How was this possible given the standard laws of engineering and physics? The 9/11 Commission Report bypassed this central issue, as did the report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Contrary to its stated objective of determining ‘why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed,’ the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made the stunning admission that it did not investigate how the towers fell. Neither the standard view that the Twin Towers collapsed from fire nor the standard opposition view that they were intentionally detonated by thermite explosives explains the evidence, nor do they follow the laws of engineering and physics. Dr. Wood left Clemson to research the 9/11 conundrum full time, and she has focused her research strictly on physical evidence and scientific principles. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? provides an understandable, credible, and photo-enhanced summary of Dr. Wood’s disturbing findings, which resulted in her lawsuit against the contractors of the NIST report.
Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry.
She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers in her areas of expertise. In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips and a large volume of witness testimony pertaining to the destruction of the WTC complex. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11. And, based on her analysis of the evidence she gathered, in 2007, she filed a federal qui tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official NIST report about the destruction of the WTC. This case was filed in the US Supreme Court in Dec 2009. To this day, Dr. Wood’s investigation is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain.
*Chapter 31. AE911 “Truth” and Other Sites Again Censor The Evidence 04 Apr 2010
AE911 – Silently Deletes A Petition Signer (pages 297 to 300) of 9/11Finding the Truth – A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf
**In Appendix C, page 238, section C, (Refined searches) of Michael Armenia’s book, “Nanomanagement:The Disintegration of a Non-Profit Corporation”, the name “Judy Wood” is a search term used to disqualify a person’s affiliation with AE911Truth.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B7AM75KZr54/Tu41u3RpSHI/AAAAAAAAACw/vA0Sy6a2CyY/s1600/Ae911+Nanomanagement+P238.jpg
Field Interference 013 AE911Truth: A Failure By Design
https://www.youtube.com/v/MTwPsj1pOxA
We reported about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in episode 16 of our audio reports. We worked for them as their systems administrators for almost two years. As a high-level administrator inside the organization, I witnessed a stunning degree of mismanagement and I was privy to everything; including the stuff that nobody was supposed to see.
http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/590-the-shaky-moral-foundation-that-ae911truth-is-built-upon.html
Richard Gage and AE911Truth sleep in the same bed with convicted sex offenders?
Manuel (Manny) Badillo from the conference “Investigate Building 7: A Call to Reexamine the Most Important Event of Our Time,” held March 26, 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpfxySEgZW8
https://web.archive.org/web/20150318144035/https://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=80147
US Marine John P DiMatale speaks at Rethink911 Times Square Event 9-11-13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNl7IQckkGA
https://web.archive.org/web/20131020073238/http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=65694
Wake up sheeple. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Big Brother only has as much power as you grant him. Independent thought is powerful. After reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Charlie Pound of the U. K. produced the song WAKE UP THIS YOUR ALARM! Unless you enjoy being fleeced, leave the opinion herd and read Dr. Wood’s book too. It has been over 14 years since a secret technology was used to create terror and mass murder for the sake of imperialism and hegemony based on a fiat money system in its death throes. What are we as a people left with? A published scientific forensic investigation that concludes a type of Directed Energy that was used as a weapon “dustified” the World Trade Center complex and a group of shadowy people determined to suppress that evidence by any means. This is the sad reality that we live in. Wake up!
http://www.youtube.com/v/E54TwifMzcg
© 2012 Music, Lyrics, & Vocals by Charlie Pound
BTW…Those who ridicule and marginalize Dr. Judy Wood are promoting the fascist police state that Edward Joseph “Ed” Snowden is alerting us to…
Fascism Anyone?
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a constitutional republic with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. (Remember that fascist regimes have elections too. Covering it up with a red, white, and blue sticker doesn’t make fascism any less despicable. When are people going to wake up and start using the “F” word?)
https://web.archive.org/web/20030603193129/http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
Mr Goldstein,
“Those who ridicule and marginalize Dr. Judy Wood. . .”
I have never ridiculed Dr Wood, in fact I have often pointed to her expertise when I considered it pertinent. She certainly understands Newton, which many do not. However the ‘black technology’ surrounding ‘directed energy’ and other areas where state-of-the-art knowledge is sketchy presents a problem since the evidence is not in the public domain. I have said before I discount nothing and respect all academics, even those who call other academics liars.
– “She [Dr Judy Wood] certainly understands Newton”
I expect she does. However, her “billiard ball scenario” has a falling floor completely pulverise upon hitting a stationary floor, which doesn’t pulverise. This contradicts Newton’s third law; “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, which predicts that the two colliding floors would pulverise to equal extents.
Therefore, Dr Wood can’t have been being serious. John, I pointed this out before but you ignored it. I expect you’d like to ignore it again.
Judy Wood also disregards conservation of momentum. The momentum of a moving mass doesn’t just disappear if the mass is pulverised.
John, your problem (and Judy Wood’s) isn’t that I can’t do physics. It’s that I CAN.
“Emmanuel Goldstein”, the Twin Towers did not “turn into dust in mid air”. The collapse videos clearly show that the dust welled up immediately AFTER, not during, the collapses.
“Where Did The Towers Go?”
– all over the WTC site:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3b/20050601212321!September_17_2001.jpg
And Judy Wood’s “billiard ball model” is fake physics – the formulae and maths are right but the physics is wrongly applied; momentum is conserved, it does not just vanish.
For this and other reasons, Judy Wood cannot be taken seriously.
I expect there would have been no point in lacing the Twin Towers with explosives. FEA is the acronym for Finite Element Analysis. It’s the engineering technique of simulating the behaviour of matter mathematically. Applying it to the Twin Towers is too complex to have been a practical proposition when they were designed and built. By 2001, cheap computers had changed that, and it had become practical to calculate what it would take to cause the Twin Towers to collapse.
FEA software is available as free, open source software. We could attempt to construct a simulation as a collaborative project. We’d have a fair bit of learning to do…
@ Clark April 10, 2017 at 22:42
So, with it being so easy to calculate what it would take to bring down the Towers, why does NIST and Co. refuse to release their computer simulation info, so it can be checked? Oh, silly me, they don’t want to end up like Mussolini dangling from a lamp post.
But Paul, there are nearly 3000 members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth – and they don’t seem to end up dangling from lamp posts.
I don’t know why NIST won’t release their simulations, but I don’t know why A&E9/11″Truth” haven’t released simulations either.
@ Clark April 11, 2017 at 10:06
I believe a guy in Canada is working on a complete simulation, and when it is completed I’m sure he will release it.
If the American people knew the truth of the government and military treachery of 9/11 (and even if it was only ‘LIHOP’, it would still be treachery), then the perps and cover-up merchants might not end up swinging from lamp-posts, but they would end up in jail for a very long time.
That complete simulation concerns Building 7.