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).
Nonsense, I didn’t know his gender and experimented with they/them/their, but felt that was less polite than saying him/her to avoid getting it wrong and causing faux offence. But I think the main point holds that it is knowingly dishonest to blame the impact of a plane rather than controlled demolition, once controlled demolition has been explained more than once.
‘Sixteen More Reasons to Question 9/11’: https://digwithin.net/2017/08/27/sixteen-more-reasons/
There will be a Demo outside the BBC in Portland Place (Oxford Circus Tube) at 14:00 Monday 11th September (re 20 minute too early Building 7 collapse report), and other issues.
Key sentence: ‘As the crimes of 9/11 continue to go unsolved and largely unquestioned, Americans should be aware that another 9/11 could happen at any time. If it does, the ongoing failure to question obvious deception in terrorism could take society to places where freedom to question is no longer an option.’
[Not just ‘Americans’]
@Paul Barbara
Reading this will save a lot of people a lot of time and money:
https://cultureandpolitics.org/2017/08/21/incontrovertible-bull/
@ Daniel September 7, 2017 at 14:54
Sorry, but I strongly disagree on this one.
For openers, PNAC wasn’t plaaned years before 9/11, it was planned nearly exactly one year before 9/11.
Their ‘1,761’ A&E has risen to 2,909 (and continually rising).
They all take into account that two fuel-laden planes hit the towers (though I and some others question that) and STILL say it was insufficient to bring down the Twin Towers, essentially in their own footprints.
There are ‘Peer Reviewed’ articles out there, which have not been refuted (I haven’t got time to chase them up now).
MMargrain’s previous article that you referred to was very useful, but frankly this one is twaddle.
Daniel, this is from your Bull article
“It was Galileo who dropped two cannon balls of different mass off the tower of Pisa and found that they both arrived on the ground at the same time. Therefore WTC 7 did not free fall because debris which was in free fall arrived on the ground first.”
The roofline of WTC 7 was measured to have achieved free fall for 3 seconds or so and this has been accepted by NIST. During those 3 seconds all of the potential energy was converted to kinetic energy leaving no energy whatsoever to collapse the structure below.
Care to explain what happened? Did Newton get it all wrong?
@Daniel
I am sorry to say, that whilst I support critiques of 911 research, I think this is a terribly misleading piece of writing. It reproduces fallacious arguments that have been discredited many times, over many years, by many people, using much evidence.
This agenda was codified in the Project for the New American Century many years before obscurantist Islamist terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers in New York – an event that many conspiracy theorists claim was an ‘inside job’.
You ignore the evidence that at least some of the alleged perpetrators (including the alleged ‘ring leader’ Mohamed Atta) were far from observant Muslims, and therefore not ‘Islamist terrorists’. That evidence might fall apart in cross examination, it might not, but until it is heard in a court where an adversarial process seeks to get to the truth of the alleged perpetrators’ motives, we do not know. You present one side of this aspect, which is misleading.
The tendency among the truth movement is to seize upon, and brandish, anomalies and coincidences as if they were facts and then present them as being indicative of the majority of expert opinion.
I dispute this. The evidential questions (perhaps first iterated by the family members’ steering committee) cover many aspects of the 911 case, from the historic connections between national intelligence agencies and the organisation allegedly behind the attack, to the so-called ‘intelligence failures’ that left their alleged plans unhindered, to the defence failures, to the financial trail of evidence, to foreknowledge of and the responses to the attack of government officials, to the mass destruction of evidence…and so on. Anyone who has honestly and earnestly given just a modicum of their time to researching the subject cannot agree that these are ‘cherry picked’ anomalies. They form the basis of any discussion of who did it? how? why? who paid for it? Was is covered up ,if so why ?
The notion that a huge volume of evidence trump relatively small anomalous evidenced-based details, and that planes laden with jet fuel smashing into the World Trade Center in New York is the most probable explanation for the buildings subsequent collapse, are scornfully dismissed.
What ‘huge volume of evidence’? Do you mean the 911 Commission Report? Much 911 Scepticism is a direct response to that report and to the commission itself. You seem to suggest that this is an authoritative account of 911, yet,
– it expressly says at the beginning that its purpose is not to apportion culpability,
– it relies extensively on torture testimony to lay out its narrative,
– it was authored by the executive director of the commission (Zelikow) who was a White House insider, a fact that by itself breaks the terms by which the commission was legitimised,
– it ignored significant testimony, recorded by the commission hearings but which failed to get a mention in the final report,
…and so on. In short it is not a credible document. The NIST reports could easily have (and should have) conformed to the very well established protocols and procedures of scientific reports. They did not, and are also not credible for that reason.
You can claim that the scales are tipped in favour of the official story and that sceptics are merely trying to pick out anomalies and co-incidences to try and crack holes in that story, but this is simply not true. You make a statement counter to fact. The official story (right or wrong) is full of major contradictions, ommissions and distortions; it conforms to practically zero of the basic standards that we expect of reliability i.e. an adversarial process where ‘factual’ statements are cross examined and tested to destruction.
Far from scornfully dismissing the 911 Commission Report and the NIST reports, sceptics have made precise and detailed criticisms of them and have sought clarification and correction, and failing that have sought a properly independent criminal investigation into 911. You cannot have read the work of Griffin, Ryan, Jones, MacQueen et al. Either that or you are deliberately misleading.
According to The United States Census Bureau there are 233,000 architects and 2,495,000 engineers in the United States. Only 1,761 out of 2,728,000 joined Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. That’s 0.065 per cent of the total.
You do not compare the number of engineers and architects who have spoken out in criticism of the NIST reports with the number who have stepped forward to defend NIST (who are not prepared to defend their own account from scrutiny). Wouldn’t that be honest to do that? There are pitifully few scientists, academics and professionals who have come forward to defend the US government’s version(s) of 911 events.
I could go on, and might below, but this is just sloppy work Daniel. You mention Philip Roddis who wrote in the blog ‘OffGuardian’ last year. Here is his latest comment on the issue from a week or so ago. As you can see, as a response to the comments BTL last autumn, he promised to actually research 911 evidence- which he admitted he hadn’t done before concluding that 911 scepticism has epistemological failures. He has not, as yet kept his promise, he has not researched 911, and, I would speculate, neither have you.
http://steelcityscribblings.uk/wp/2017/08/31/it-was-twenty-years-ago-today/
I was tasked with critiquing the outlandish claims made in the “documentary” Incontrovertible in relation to WTC7. That was the crux of the piece so can you please stick to that specific topic for the sake of brevity. Thank you.
@Daniel (part ii)
You cite the web page ‘debunking911.com’ five times in your piece. For someone who sings the virtue of ‘peer review’ and, by extension the essential criteria of transparency and accountabity in the process of evaluating knowledge, it is strange to refer readers to a web page that is anonymous.
I speculate that 911debunking.com is authored by the same people (person ?) who writes 911myths.com, the journal of debunking 911 and screwloosechange, making your argument about the 2900 architects and engineers being unrepresentative, incredibly weak.
Mog
You recently gave us a link to the following, which I think is one of the very best critiques of the official theory and the way it’s been defended:
https://911inacademia.com/
Why waste your time on commentators that don’t deal with the issues raised by this work of Toronto University’s?
@ Bobm September 7, 2017 at 16:34
‘..Why waste your time on commentators that don’t deal with the issues raised by this work of Toronto University’s?….’
Rather harsh; I believe Daniel is OK, he has just picked up a ball and ran with it, without having looked at the evidence himself, on the basis that the author of the article is very good on other stuff (Syria). Not a waste of time, just a timely wake-up call!
I am a lay person who has used deductive reasoning and probability skills in addition to an understanding of basic physics and peer review science. What are your academic credentials?
The only peer reviewed study to have passed the peer reviewed process was one that debunked the demolition thesis. It’s incumbent on the conspiracy theorists to prove that building 7 was brought down by controlled explosives. As yet no evidence has been provided to substantiate your dumb thesis.
“It was Galileo who dropped two cannon balls of different mass off the tower of Pisa and found that they both arrived on the ground at the same time. Therefore WTC 7 did not free fall because debris which was in free fall arrived on the ground first. This is basic physics which truther websites do not explain. NIST surmised that far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. This was confirmed as a result of the findings of a peer-reviewed paper – the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review process regarding the WTC tragedy.”
Galileo should have dropped the cannon balls onto the top floor of the tower of Pisa and watch all the floors below crumble to dust. What you cannot grasp about Newton’s third law is that there is an opposite and equal reaction.
Sadly, Daniel, you are another visitor to this thread who has been brainwashed by NIST and its ‘evidence’ via academic papers funded by the government through universities. I have read much of your blog which neither saved me any time nor any money. If you read my comment on the previous page you would know what a peer-reviewed paper is regarding 9/11 and what the failure is of the one chosen by NIST to support a theory it is not possible to model.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-116/#comments
If you did read the comment you made no response regarding it which you ought to have done because it discusses what you think is the only peer-reviewed paper.
“Two days after 9/11, on 13 September 2001, Professor Zdeněk P. Bažant of Northwestern University submitted to peer review a paper with one of his students, Yong Zhou, as co-author [26]. The paper was a theoretical analysis of the WTC Towers’ collapses. It argued that, “if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.” The paper was submitted to the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) Journal of Engineering Mechanics and was, after peer review and some modifications, published in 2002. Later, NIST cited this paper as support for its own conclusions [27]. However, Bažant’s and Zhou’s paper never attempted to explain the many different physical observations, such as lateral high-velocity ejections of materials for hundreds of meters, and the fact that there was no pile driver to crush each tower, since all materials were blown outside the buildings’ footprints [28].”
Your blog has other deficiencies. First of all you are something like 1,000 short of the actual number of Engineers and Architects who question the official version. Furthermore you seem to think that whatever the number might be that any engineers or architects who have not questioned the official version support it. Which is nonsense. What you need to do is find 2,909 engineers and architects who support the official version. I wish you luck in your quest and lots of time on your hands. 🙂
@Daniel (part iii)
This particularly annoyed me:
Rather like climate change deniers, 9/11 truthers cherry-pick their evidence and seize any excuse for ignoring the arguments…
The academic and writer who has put more work than anyone else into documenting the anomalies, ommissions and contradictions of the official account of 911 is Dr. David Ray Griffin. He has just written his second book about climate change, and the first was widely acclaimed as one of the best on the subject.
So whilst there defintely are climate change deniers who think 911 was ‘an inside job’, you are being very dishonest and misleading in statements like the one above.
What are Griffin’s academic credentials? You might as well support your theory by citing the views of a car mechanic….LOL
@Mog
you make sense to me. Having done research from various sources i have come to the conclusion it was a well laid out planned act.
only explosive could bring those towers down as they did.
Recently found a video interview of a retired general of 7th fleet . His observation at the pentagon it was a missile not a plane, but what made him highly suspicious was when he learned from his source that at time of “attack” air defense had been shut down all over the country. He said that is something we never ever do. To give that order requires highest level of power I think.
Reason? to justify wars to 7 countries according to plan .
Bush statement he had seen it on tv was false, at that time it had not been on TV as yet.
of course removing the metal from a crime scene is a give away.
we have too much evidence and information but not a serious free government to pursue it.
Patriot act to protect against any accusation was also planned.
we shall see!
John, there is a very good reason why over 99% of As and Es in the US refuse to lend their names to A&Es for Truth. Griffin does not possess the necessary or relevant academic credentials. You might as well ask a professor of economics to lend credibility to the notion WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence to support your mad cap theory – none, zilch, zero, nada.
Mog,
David Ray Griffin is a former philosophy and theology professor (specifically, emeritus at Claremont School of Theology in California) and current moonbat conspiracy theorist. He wrote a load of theology texts in his pre-truther days, mostly dealing with theology and postmodernism. He claims to have evidence of a government conspiracy regarding the 9/11 tragedy and Osama bin Laden’s death, and he has written several books on the subject.
His first and most famous work of trutherism is The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Naturally, it’s a book-length just asking questions session (indeed, he never explains how the conspiracy would work in toto, but merely attempts to poke holes in the “official account” like most other conspiracy theorists), replete with the standard post hoc cui bono reasoning and citations of other cranks as “experts.” All the old truther chestnuts are there as well, including WTC7, the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile, the PNAC, and a number of the other greatest hits.
He has also written some material shoehorning Christian theology into trutherism (namely, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action).
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
Mog
Lynn Margulis (born Lynn Petra Alexander;[1][2] March 5, 1938 – November 22, 2011)[3] was an American evolutionary theorist and biologist, science author, educator, and popularizer, and was the primary modern proponent for the significance of symbiosis in evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis
As I said previously, you might as well of cited a motor mechanic….LOL.
Mog,
“Evidence suggests that conspiracist-minded people tend to think both they are “too special to be duped” and that they desire “uniqueness” provided by belief in conspiracy theories.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Ring any bells? Those who wear the tin foil hats never see it when they look in the mirror.
WTC 7 is ‘about to blow up’
Daniel
In the recent past I have asked Kempe – as a defender of the official narrative – for his explanation of a certain piece of CNN footage. So far, he hasn’t answered, perhaps you will oblige me?
The footage shows firemen and cops moving people back from WTC 7 saying the building is ‘about to blow up’. Whereupon there is an explosion and the building collapses, at freefall speed for some of the time, and exhibiting the hallmarks of a controlled demolition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A
To me that CNN footage means exactly what it says on the tin, Building 7 was blown up. Presumably you don’t think that, so can you tell me what your explanation of the footage is?
Thanks.
King, the answers to your questions are in my article that you clearly haven’t read.
You are right, I had not read your article. I have now and can find nothing in it that answers the simple question I posed.
King, then you didn’t read closely enough or have comprehension problems.
Daniel, you appeared on this thread defending the official narrative so I respectfully asked you a simple question, one that I put to other defenders of the ON. You could have given me the answer in two lines, but instead you sent me off to read an entire article. This is not good etiquette, but I obliged you and read the article but found nothing in it that specifically addressed my question. When I said as much you accused me of not reading closely enough or failing to comprehend. Can you cut-and-paste the relevant section so we can see if you are right to accuse me of these things?
Replies to Daniel
I was tasked with critiquing the outlandish claims made in the “documentary” Incontrovertible in relation to WTC7. That was the crux of the piece so can you please stick to that specific topic for the sake of brevity. Thank you.
Your piece made many sweeping general claims about people who pursue critical perspectives on the events of 911, and on those critiques themselves. So although you wrote about Rooke’s film, you also wrote about Chomsky’s opinions, Philip Roddis’ opinions about epistemology, AE911truth, Watergate and on. So I felt justified in responding to the general accusation that 911 truth has been debunked.
I am not that interested in Rooke’s film. I think, as a documentary, it was a decent contribution, but I am more interested in the professionals and academics who have approached the subject and sought recognition for their work.
The only peer reviewed study to have passed the peer reviewed process was one that debunked the demolition thesis. It’s incumbent on the conspiracy theorists to prove that building 7 was brought down by controlled explosives. As yet no evidence has been provided to substantiate your dumb thesis.
If you were honest about the research you would see that the Bazant hypothesis with regard to the towers has been disputed in the literature, and would have noted that the NIST report on WTC7 is not peer reviewed – in fact quite the opposite, it relies on a set of models whose data sets are classified. This latter report is not science, it is psuedoscience. That, in and of itself, doesn’t prove the controlled demolition theory correct, but it discredits the NIST theory of 7’s collapse. Generally, I think that the conversation is more responsive to people who approach the subject with open minded scepticism rather than one sided bias and insults about ‘dumb theories’.
https://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/
What are Griffin’s academic credentials? You might as well support your theory by citing the views of a car mechanic….LOL
Why not look them up Daniel? Seeing as he has written eleven books on a subject that is of interest to millions of people around the world, are you not curious about who he is and where he is coming from? Griffin has a distinguished academic career, and was voted amongst the 100 most inflential people in the world (2009). He has written extensively about philosophy, including the philosophy of science and its interface with belief. His broad summary of the 911 critiques , ‘The New Pearl Harbour Revisited’ was given an excellent review by Publishers Weekly,
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-56656-729-9
…his work has been endorsed by people like Lynne Margulis (winner of the presidential medal of honour for contributions to science). Griffin is clear about the extent of his technical credentials, but is well qualified to handle technical arguments and to point out scientific fraud. (As mentioned before, you cite an anonymous web page, so at least we can see who in the world Griffin is – or for that matter my car mechanic – they are willing to stand behind their argument).
The specific arguments about WTC7 are made at AE911truth.org, the Journal of 911 Studies and WTC7.net. If you are serious about challenging the case made there, then focus on that rather than Rooke’s film.
I really don’t think that you have approached the subject with an open, honest mind Daniel.
If I make futher replies, I will leave them under the article on your blog.
There is a difference between disputing something and having that dispute passing the peer review process. My criticism stands. When you actually cite evidence predicated on peer review to prove your outlandish claim, then get back to me.
Sorry, posted this a page back in the wrong place
Daniel, this is from your Bull article making the outlandish claim that WTC 7 did not reach free fall.
“It was Galileo who dropped two cannon balls of different mass off the tower of Pisa and found that they both arrived on the ground at the same time. Therefore WTC 7 did not free fall because debris which was in free fall arrived on the ground first.”
The roofline of WTC 7 was measured to have achieved free fall for 3 seconds or so and this has been accepted by NIST. During those 3 seconds all of the potential energy was converted to kinetic energy leaving no energy whatsoever to collapse the structure below.
Care to explain what happened? Did Newton get it all wrong?
Nikko, 2.25 secs as I mentioned in my article that you didn’t read.
So how do you explain the 2.25 seconds?
Nikko, Presumably the experts had thought about that at the time of the peer review process.
Nikko, Let me ask you this. Do you seriously believe that a “controlled” demolition would have been planned amid the chaos of 9/11. WTC 7 was on fire during the uncontrolled “controlled” demolition with chaos and confusion abound. The building was on fire for 7 hours before it finally collapsed Or are you going to tell me that it wasn’t on fire for 7 hours? The notion that it was brought down by controlled demolition is the ultimate in cognitive dissonance.
What experts, what peer review process, what is is their explanation? And what is your view? Or do you automatically believe what you are fed?
What I believe how the events surrounding WTC 7 were planned is neither here nor there. All I know is that according to the laws of physics I was taught at school gravity alone could not have been responsible.
I am all ears to hear your explanation.
Mog
Ah, the “expert” Griffin:
David Ray Griffin is a former philosophy and theology professor (specifically, emeritus at Claremont School of Theology in California) and current moonbat conspiracy theorist. He wrote a load of theology texts in his pre-truther days, mostly dealing with theology and postmodernism. He claims to have evidence of a government conspiracy regarding the 9/11 tragedy and Osama bin Laden’s death, and he has written several books on the subject.
His first and most famous work of trutherism is The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Naturally, it’s a book-length just asking questions session (indeed, he never explains how the conspiracy would work in toto, but merely attempts to poke holes in the “official account” like most other conspiracy theorists), replete with the standard post hoc cui bono reasoning and citations of other cranks as “experts.” All the old truther chestnuts are there as well, including WTC7, the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile, the PNAC, and a number of the other greatest hits.
He has also written some material shoehorning Christian theology into trutherism (namely, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action).
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
Nikko, even I as a layperson understand that if a building is said to have come down at freefall speed (the building took 18 secs not 7 secs as conspiracy theorists claim), then it would have been impossible for debris from that building to have hit the ground first. Please explain, professor, Nikko.
First of all, even the NIST theory blaming it all on 19 Arabs is a conspiracy theory.
As for the 18 second WTC 7 collapse, I guess it all depends when you start the clock. From the time the roof started to move, the duration of the visible collapse measured by NIST is 5.4 seconds. I do not have an issue with this. If you do take it up with NIST.
As for the debris from WTC 7 hitting the ground before the building you’d have to be a lot more specific and precise before I’ll be able to comment: what debris, where did it come from, at what point did it detach from the building, which part of the building hit the ground after the debris. Also, as far as I know only the first 5.4 seconds of the collapse are visible so how do you know when different parts of the building and debris hit the ground?
Talking about debris, WTC 7 was hit by falling debris from the collapsing WTC 1, some considerable distance away. I recall from school that gravity acts vertically downwards. Still trying to figure out how WTC 1, collapsing according to NIST under gravity only, was ejecting debris far enough to have hit WTC 7 100 odd meters away. Are you able to help?
Nikko, wrong again on all counts. That 19 Arabs did it is not a conspiracy theory.
The evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
So clearly the building didn’t freefall.
Nikko
What in this statement do you not understand?
“The structural engineering community REJECTS the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its CONSENSUS is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that DOES NOT INVOLVE THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES.”
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282007%29133%3A3%28308%29
Obviously you do not know how to explain it. Who is the structural engineering community you are referring to? There is nothing in that abstract you have linked to which explains anything
As I said before, seems you are just repeating something which you do not understands
Ok, you don’t understand what scientific consensus means. Fine.
Why are you not explaining who has reached this consensus. And what is your explanation
Ah, I get it. They are all “in on it”.
Nikko
Until 9/11 truthers get around to actually testing their controlled demolition hypothesis and publishing the data from such a test in a reputable peer-reviewed paper, then their claims are worthless. Until now, they have not got beyond the stage in which they have made the leap from assertion and conjecture to testable hypothesis and theory.
The scientific consensus position is:
“The structural engineering community REJECTS the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its CONSENSUS is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that DOES NOT INVOLVE THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES.”
The position is outlined here
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
Has the penny dropped yet?
Daniel, I think that you have forgotten that we were talking about the WTC 7 free fall duration of 2.25s and I was hoping that you would explain to me in your own words how that can be sustained in a gravity only collapse. That would appear to be beyond you as you have linked to a paper by Bazant and two others (is that your idea of consensus in the structural engineering community?). I imagine that you were impressed by the paper’s scientific jargon and complicated looking equations, but the situation is that the paper does not deal with WTC 7 so is of no help to me whatsoever.
If you had actually read and understood Bazant’s paper, you would have realised that it proposes a model scenario for the collapse of the Twin Towers and finishes by proposing a testing and validation of the model using accurate photo telemetry on known demolitions. It admits that the videos of the tower collapses are not good enough to validate the model.
So until such time that Bazant’s model is fully validated and applied also to WTC7, I am sticking with Newton and the laws of energy that tell us that a gravity collapse at free fall is not possible.
Nikko, Have you considered that this would have been a major consideration of the experts during the peer review process? I cannot comment on an issue that I am not expert in. That’s the role of scientists in the field who you think are “in on it”. Have you considered the possibility that the 2.25 second free fall is an irrelevant straw man and that you are extrapolating. WTC 7 took 18 seconds to collapse, not 7, as conspiracy theorists claim. It did not free fall. If had of done so, debris from it wouldn’t have fallen on the ground before its collapse. This is basic physics that even a lay person like me can understand. Also, as I pointed out in my article, there were no seismographic records that indicated signs of explosions. These are facts.
“Nikko, Have you considered that this would have been a major consideration of the experts during the peer review process? “
Your question shows that you really have no clue what the Bazant article is all about nor how peer review works.
“I cannot comment on an issue that I am not expert in.
But you are commenting. Why link to an article that you do not understand or have not read? Still, you do not have to be an expert in structural engineering to have noticed that there is no conclusion in the Bazant paper. Do you always believe everything you are told?
Have you considered the possibility that the 2.25 second free fall is an irrelevant straw man and that you are extrapolating. WTC 7 took 18 seconds to collapse, not 7, as conspiracy theorists claim. It did not free fall. If had of done so, debris from it wouldn’t have fallen on the ground before its collapse. This is basic physics that even a lay person like me can understand. Also, as I pointed out in my article, there were no seismographic records that indicated signs of explosions. These are facts.
The 2.25 seconds free fall time is agreed by NIST and is in their report as having occurred between 1.75s and 4.0 s into the collapse, once the roof began to descend. There is no extrapolation. Also, your figure of 18 seconds total collapse is a red herring and not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant that during 2.25 s of the visible collapse the building was in free fall. If you disagree take it up with NIST.
May I suggest that you dust off your o’level physics and do some thinking for yourself, rather than blindly put forward other people’s work which you do not understand.
Oh, and no I don’t believe everything I’m told as any brief reference to my blog will attest. But what I won’t accept is illogicality, basic common sense, and a lack of ability to reason. Since when has a building on fire amid chaos and confusion been demolished in a “controlled” manner and what was the motivation? Please answer these questions. Thank you.
Daniel, if you believe the official NIST theory for WTC 7 then you believe that a relatively small fire dislodged a beam from its seating which led to the total and simultaneous collapse of the whole building across the full length of its façade, happening at free fall for 2.25 seconds. Is that what passes as common sense for you?
There are a lot of issues and contradictions around WTC 7, many of which were discussed here at length quite recently. Why don’t you look them up? I suggest you start with the CNN video posted by KingofWelshNoir a few posts up on this page and answer his question about how you interpret the firemen saying that the building will blow up.
I recently posted this
”
cReply ↓
Bobm
September 7, 2017 at 16:34
Mog
You recently gave us a link to the following, which I think is one of the very best critiques of the official theory and the way it’s been defended:
https://911inacademia.com/
Why waste your time on commentators that don’t deal with the issues raised by this work of Toronto University’s? ”
Paul Barbara was, to my surprise, rather sympathetic to Daniel, the target of my criticism.
“Paul Barbara
September 8, 2017 at 01:06
@ Bobm September 7, 2017 at 16:34
‘..Why waste your time on commentators that don’t deal with the issues raised by this work of Toronto University’s?….’
Rather harsh; I believe Daniel is OK, he has just picked up a ball and ran with it, without having looked at the evidence himself, on the basis that the author of the article is very good on other stuff (Syria). Not a waste of time, just a timely wake-up call! ”
To my further surprise, PB has not commented further, although Daniel seems to be intent upon digging himself into an ever-deeper hole.
What is going on, here?
I know that the free fall was agreed by NIST in terms of the 2.25 second free fall which isn’t in dispute but clearly it’s irrelevant. Interesting that you ignored the fact that the seismographic record shows no evidence of explosions.
And you also ignored the basic physics.
Bobm. Wrong. I didn’t “pick up a ball and run with it”. The level of cognitive dissonance on this is astounding. Perhaps you could explain why the seismographic record shows no evidence of explosions? A controlled demolition with no explosions…Mmm, interesting. Could you also explain how it’s possible for a “controlled” demolition to happen in circumstances in which, clearly, there was no control? Can you also please explain what the motive was given that the Larry Silverstein canard has been debunked? Thank you.
As a “lay person”, like you, I was impressed by the Toronto documentary.
Are you going to address it, or are you not?
Look beyond the headline and Saturday’s Daily Mail has two full pages of accurate coverage of 9/11 truth.
Thank you, Dave.
I am quite staggered that the Mail covered the story in this much detail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html
I see that Daniel says that he will “pass”, now.
No big loss there, I think.
Bohm @ 16.18
I was a bit hasty saying look beyond the headline as it implied the headline was bad! I know we expect to read the pejorative term conspiracy theories, but the headline only referred to conspiracies, which of course is an accurate description of 9/11, making the entire article remarkable
The Daily Mail is controlled media, but also a commercial operation and needs to retain the loyalty of its huge readership by imparting truth as well as BS. So to balance all the nonsense about alleged terror attacks, it tells the truth about 9/11.
I’m sick to death od dumb conspiracy theory “documentaries” so I’ll pass. Thanks
@ Daniel September 10, 2017 at 10:06
So why did you post on this thread in the first place?
Lynn Margulis, PhD – Scientist – AE911Truth.org :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og
Not quite your average ‘motor mechanic’.
So no demolition of WTC 7 is a ‘crackpot theory’?
Check out this short testimony from Barry Jennings, who conveniently (for the authorities) ‘died’ a couple of days before NIST’s Final Report on WTC 7:
‘Fabled Enemies Extra: WTC Eyewitness Barry Jennings’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o0PTsP1_AE
The stairs blew up before either Tower came down (stairwell are traditionally among the first parts of buildings to be wired fro controlled demolitions); Jennings was trapped in the building for about 7 hours, and all the time was hearing explosions.
He was walking over dead people in the lobby (official narrative is that no one died in WTC 7).
As for David Ray Griffin just ‘asking questions and poking holes in the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’, that is precisely how false alibis and other false evidence is broken down in courts across the land. Griffin makes no claim to be an Engineer or Architect, he just demolished the ‘OCT’ by logic and anomalies, as well as direct contradictions in the ‘OCT’.
As for Griffin bringing religion into it, Christianity is about learning the truth – ‘the truth shall set you free’, and also is about not making false allegations against innocent people (in this case Osama Bin Laden).
Your chosen abandonment of this thread will not be missed.
Nikko, that’s a total misrepresentation of the NIST report. Again. you have refused to deal with the elephant in the room points and offer no evidence of a controlled demolition.
No idea which post you are referring to.
As for the last point, it is not necessary for the Truth movement to offer evidence for controlled demolition (although there is some) to disprove the official theory.
I think you are referring to this post from 10 Sep, 12.08
“Daniel, if you believe the official NIST theory for WTC 7 then you believe that a relatively small fire dislodged a beam from its seating which led to the total and simultaneous collapse of the whole building across the full length of its façade, happening at free fall for 2.25 seconds. Is that what passes as common sense for you?
There are a lot of issues and contradictions around WTC 7, many of which were discussed here at length quite recently. Why don’t you look them up? I suggest you start with the CNN video posted by KingofWelshNoir a few posts up on this page and answer his question about how you interpret the firemen saying that the building will blow up.
Which bit of my summary of the NIST report for WTC 7 do you not agree with?
Erm, the onus is on the truth movement to prove their contention that building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.
You are going off on a tangent again. 2.25 seconds free fall is pretty indicative of controlled demolition, would you not agree? While it may not be an absolute proof, it is good enough to demand a proper investigation.
To get back on track, you have accused me of misrepresenting the NIST conclusion but failed to explain how when I invited you to do so.
The report can be found here
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
Unfortunately, it does not allow me to copy and paste from it but you will find the description of the collapse sequence in section 4.2 on page 47 and 48. My summary was quite accurate.
Clearly not knowing what you are talking about does not stop you from passing judgement
I mistakenly thought , from your comment: ‘I’m sick to death od dumb conspiracy theory “documentaries” so I’ll pass. Thanks’ (September 10, 2017 at 10:06) meant you were abandoning this thread, which is why I posted ‘Your chosen abandonment of this thread will not be missed.’
Hopefully you’ll do a little research yourself, rather than trying to rubbish something you clearly know very little about.
Just where is your ‘Debunking’ of ‘Incontrovertible’?
The documentary was specifically aimed at informing police and firefighters.
Nikko at 18.02. I haven’t gone off tangent. No I don’t agree that 2.25 of freefall is indicative of a controlled demolition. What could possibly make you come to that conclusion? You misrepresented the NIST report. I have already explained how. If you can’t keep up, just say so.
Daniel, I am certainly finding it difficult to track your posts as your discipline to post in the appropriate place is atrocious. If I have missed your explanation of how I misrepresented NIST’s findings, that you need to refer me to it.
I am pleased that you have abandoned your incorrect and idiotic assertion that WTC 7 was not in free fall, as even NIST have accepted this and measured its duration at 2.25 seconds.
Free fall in this case means that for 2.25 seconds there was no supporting structure whatsoever below the collapsing upper section of the building. If you want me to accept that that is not indicative of a controlled demolition, then you will need to explain to me what happened to the supporting structure and how come it stopped performing its function of supporting the building.
I have already explained to you that the collapsing front had no spare energy to destroy the structure below.
Nikko, You sidestepped my questions at 22.13 (9/7) which is typical of truthers:
Failures re Occam’s Razor and the parsimony principle. One consequence of theory-expansion of the kind that draws Dylan Avery into the 9/11 conspiracy is a burgeoning complexity, jerry-built and inelegant, in explanatory power.
Tomorrow is the 16th anniversary of the tragic collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Centre. Engineers and Architects for 9/11 Truth are calling for justice for the victims’ families. Americans are being asked to support The Bobby McIlvaine Act for an impartial and open inquiry into what really did cause these three buildings to be brought down.
https://beta.ae911truth.org/get-involved/bobby-mcilvaine-act
@ John Goss September 10, 2017 at 20:10
Tomorrow 11th September there will be a demo outside the BBC, Portland Place from 14:00 hrs. focusing on lies and slanted ‘evidence’ from the BBC re 9/11, and particularly Jane Standley’s reporting WTC 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it did.
Thanks Paul. I knew about it but cannot make it though I will be there in spirit. 🙂
John, Paul, Mog, Bobm, Nikko et al., I’ll see you all there in spirit!
John, How about the possibility that the catalyst was actually two planes laden with jet fuel smashing into one of them at high velocity. To all rational observers this seems the most likely cause as opposed to speculating on other extremely unlikely hypothetical coincidental causes such as uncontrolled “controlled” demolition, no? Just a thought…LOL.
It’s a long time since I thought that might have been the cause Daniel.
https://johnplatinumgoss.wordpress.com/2017/02/06/crates-and-cranes-911/
and:
https://johnplatinumgoss.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/structural-steel-and-911/
So John, please explain how a controlled demolition can take place in circumstances in which the said demolition was far from controlled? And what was the motivation given that the Silverstein conspiracy has been debunked? Thanks.
John,
Seismic data from multiple sources indicates that, as with the Twin Towers, the collapse of WTC 7 began slowly, completely unlike an explosive demolition but consistent with internal failures leading to global collapse (Source: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory).
Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument. Explosive demolitions would not be very controlled, or likely to work at all, if they involved slamming tons of skyscraper debris through a building and then setting it on fire for seven hours. Precision explosives, timers, and wiring don’t like that sort of treatment (Source: Brent Blanchard of Protec http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc).
‘Mysterious 9/11 Witness Deaths’: http://newmediacentral.net/mysterious-911-witness-deaths/
‘…Barry Jennings
Barry Jennings was the former New York Housing Authority Emergency Coordinator.
On 9/11, Barry Jennings reported that he and Michael Hess had been blown back by a big explosion inside Building 7.
He later said in an interview that he had heard explosions in Building 7 before either Tower had collapsed.
He also reported that he was stepping over bodies, contradicting the official gov’t claim that no one died in Building 7.
Barry died mysteriously on August 19, 2008 — two days before the release of the NIST Report’s first draft….’
Barry Jennings claims have been debunked:
http://debunking911.com/
@ Daniel September 8, 2017 at 23:40
No ‘Truther’ I know of says or believes that WTC 7 was rigged for demolition on the day, but rigged previously, like WTC’s 1 & 2.
And check out Barry Jennings witness evidence (previous comment of mine).
Also, no peer reviews? ‘PEER REVIEWED PAPER’:
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/wtc-towers/nano-thermite/peer-reviewed-paper/
‘Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal – ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust…’:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090404150711883
‘Journal of 9/11 Studies’: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
“The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, electronic-only journal covering research related to the events of September 11, 2001. Many fields of study are represented and all content is freely available online.
Approximately 70 peer-reviewed articles and a similar number of letters are available. The editors have also published articles in mainstream scientific journals and offer links to those papers from this site.”
Do a bit of homework, and stop wasting our time, Daniel.
‘9/11 IN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY’:
https://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/
ACADEMIA’S TREATMENT OF CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON 9/11 – DOCUMENTARY
‘Academic Papers
The following articles are peer-reviewed journal papers that address issues surrounding the day of 9/11/2001 from a critical perspective. Academics are encouraged to take an interest in critical 9/11 research………’
Paul, I repeat, no paper has passed the peer review process proving that building 7 was brought down as a result of controlled demolition. Producing numerous irrelevant papers and then extrapolating doesn’t cut it.
Daniel, Professor Z. Bažant together with Yong Zhou speculated on fire being mainly responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 two days after 9/11 and produced a draft paper.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/bazant_jem/bazant_zhou.html
Please read the Closing Comments.
Four months later they published this speculation in a more polished form. Up to 2009 when this peer-reviewed paper was produced there had been a further 114 peer-reviewed papers regarding the collapse of WTC 7.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf
The way you keep trotting out the phrase ‘peer review’ it must contain some magic in your mind not understood by academics, much of whose work is peer-reviewed. Bažant and Zhou’s paper was speculation, but it was speculation NIST chose to support its “set up to fail” hypothesis. Even with Bažant and Zhou’s paper there was reliance on a jolt (power-driver would be a better description) which NIST ignored. That is why “A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis” by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti was possible to write.
Serious academics in science and engineering disciplines (indeed probably all disciplines) do not go around claiming that what they write is irrefutable (otherwise it would be law). Therefore no academic would make a claim that building 7 was brought down by explosives but they would certainly defend a hypothesis that this could have happened, or something else could have happened to the Bažant/Zhou paper speculation.
Hope this helps your understanding of peer review papers.
But the truth is Daniel, as Richard Feynman argued, you can have all the scientific papers in the world but if the theory they support does not agree with experiment: IT IS WRONG!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00
John, the onus is on the conspiracy theorists to prove the controlled demolition thesis by reference to peer review. No such evidence has been forthcoming. You should listen to Chomsky on the this and related issues concerning the absurdity of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
While Chomsky is good on some issues he is not an engineer. I cannot learn from him. Neither can you but you, as a self-proclaimed layman, can learn from the above video. However you make no comment about it, and just digress, while others are courteous towards you.
As Truther claims often contradict one another and change like night following day, you will forgive me for being a little confused…LOL
@ Daniel September 11, 2017 at 14:37
You did not specify a Peer Reviewed paper ‘proving’ WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
But, if you want one, I’m fairly sure you’ll get one shortly, given the latest stuff brought out.
I’ll deal with your other comments as I come to them; I started at the latest.
Paul, Barry Jennings, like Rodriguez, is not a reliable witness:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Barry_Jennings
@ Daniel September 11, 2017 at 15:22
Of course William Rodriguez isn’t a ‘reliable witness’, his testimony goes against the ‘Official Narrative’, or ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’.
Give me one good reason why a guy who got a medal for ‘Hero of the US’ from the ass*ole Bush, and who lost 200 personal friends in the attacks, is not a ‘reliable witness’? Fire away, babes – is he an out and out liar? Did he refuse, or not, to play ball with the ‘PTB’, and accept a TV slot, and a Congressional/Senatorial bribe? How come? Do your homework – most of us on this thread have done our homework already – you appear not to have.
And Barry Jennings, who ‘conveniently’ died 2 days before the NIST ‘Final Report’ on WTC 7 was released, is not a ‘reliable witness’?
Is he a liar, a madman, or just a bemused ‘whatever’?
Some EVIDENCE would be really appreciated.
(And while you’re AT IT, some response to my posts about the attack on the USS Liberty, if it’s not too much trouble).
Neither Jennings nor Rodriguez appeared in the ‘9/11 Report’; Rodriguez’s testimony was heard behind closed doors (WHY?) and never appeared in the report – nor did any of the 80-odd witnesses he wanted to introduce even interviewed.
Are you bloody well sure, mate?
‘The conspiracies that won’t go away: Brother of 9/11 victim claim the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire’:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html
(by Sue Reid, not Jake Wallis Simons!).
‘…One of the most puzzling anomalies was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there would have been plenty of time to do so and it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack.
In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America. Then there were the irregular stock market dealings before the tragedy.
An extremely high volume of ‘put options’ — bets on the price of shares falling — were purchased for the stock of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, the international financier that occupied 22 storeys of the World Trade Centre.
Even more remarkable was the volume of ‘put options’ traded on American and United Airlines, which operated the four aircraft hijacked by the terrorists.
On these two airlines, and only these, the level of share trade went up by 1,200 per cent in the three days before the catastrophe. As the shares dropped in response to 9/11 the value of these options multiplied a hundredfold. Someone, somewhere, made $10 million in profit.
But, of all the conundrums, the most perplexing is how the three World Trade Centre towers fell to the ground.
The official version is that the Twin Towers collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes.
This explanation has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the U.S. intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and the UK.
However, sceptics say the science does not stand up. They argue that steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800f, and open fires of jet fuel — such as those in the Twin Towers inferno — cannot burn hotter than 1,700f.
Official reports state the steel in the third tower reached a maximum of 1,100f.
Professor Griffin and other sceptics believe the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up. They claim their controversial theory is corroborated by first-hand testimony from firefighters at the scene.
In oral histories of 9/11 by New York Fire Department staff which have been made public, almost a quarter suggest they heard explosions going off before the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Of the South Tower, firefighter Richard Banaciski said: ‘There was just an explosion. It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way round like a belt . . . all those explosions……..’
Paul, did you notice the comment below the Mail Online story by Dave (David?) Shayler saying :
?
@ Node September 11, 2017 at 13:52
I didn’t, but if you post the link(s) I’ll check it/them out.
I know David Shayler, and Annie Machon.
The Daily mail has stopped accepting comments on that story. However for now, you can still view the David Shayler post if you click “view all comments”. Also, the profiles of posters are available to the public, including posts they have made in the last 7 days so I have copied the link to Dave Shaler’s :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/registration/1505076677732317/Dave-Shayler/profile.html
But as a bonus surprise, while I was looking for David Shayler, I found 2 posts from …. David Chandler!!
David S. Chandler:
Thank you, Daily Mail, for breaking through the media taboo and presenting the evidence that the official myth about 9/11 is false. This is not flaky stuff. There is overwhelming evidence that NIST’s report was part of an elaborate coverup. All three buildings accelerated downward throughout their collapses, with WTC7 accelerating at absolute freefall. Now Leroy Hulsey’s team at the University of Alaska as confirmed that NIST’s analysis of their proposed mechanism to get WTC7 to fall due to fire alone was only accomplished in their computer modeling by falsifying the structural details. The correct modeling of the building’s structure does not fail under the conditions claimed by NIST. Check out the work of several of us at 911 speak out dot org. This is not conspiracy theory. It is looking at the facts and the physics and going where the evidence leads.
Then a MarkRoberts replies :
David, in your opinion does the Hulsey paper also invalidate the Weidlinger study? What do you think of the Tehran steel-frame high-rise collapse this year? And if you don’t understand why a skyscraper collapse would accelerate over time, what have you been studying all these years?
To which David S. Chandler replies:
See my paper, “Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics.” Google it or find it on my web site, 911 speak out dot org. For the top section to deliver an amplified force on the lower section of the building, greater than the weight of the top section alone, there must be a loss of momentum to generate the impulse. If there is a uniform downward acceleration, which was actually observed, then there is no loss of momentum and therefore no impulse: the top section isn’t crushing anything. It is falling into the rubble created by other forces. Read the paper.
Here’s his Chandler’s profile link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/registration/1505136517058297/David-S.-Chandler/profile.html
That Daily Mail article really was quite amazingly detailed and fair. No wonder the ‘big guns’ are visiting it. I wonder if there are any more big names in there that I’m missing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html
Paul, Brother of a victim and a theologian….I’m convinced…LOL
@ Daniel September 11, 2017 at 17:33
You can scoff; I had a drink with the brother of a victim today – the same one you’re talking about – I don’t think he’d appreciate your LOL.
But he, like me, recognises a prat when they come across them (he’s sharper than me in that respect).
As for the Theologian, you would have as much chance as a snowball in hell of debating him for even 15 minutes; you’d be chewed up and spat out quicker than you can say ‘USS Liberty’.
But of course, LOL.
Paul, I have utter respect for the victims of 9/11 which is precisely why I won’t indulge in conspiracy theories that besmirch the memory of the vast majority of families who lost loved ones on that fateful day. As for David Ray Griffin, his credentials are worthless in the context of 9/11.
I too am amazed that the Daily Mail got to publish this story. There are places in it where I still think questions need to be asked – for example the article supports the official view regarding aircraft – but one step at a time. This step from the Mail was a huge one. It does not detract from the fact that it employs people like Jake Wallis Simons but when something which has been kept out of mainstream news for as long as the questioning of 9/11 has for a mainstream newspaper to publish an alternative viewpoint raising many concerns of those of us not satisfied with NIST, FEMA, and the other powerful organisations which have continued, and continue, to suppress alternative lines of reasoning as to what actually happened it has to be applauded.
https://harpers.org/blog/2017/09/crime-and-punishment/
Graham and his team defied Mueller’s efforts, and Jacobson flew west. There he discovered that his hunch was correct. The FBI files in California were replete with extraordinary and damning details, notably the hijackers’ close relationship with Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi living in San Diego with a no-show job at a local company with connections to the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation. The FBI had investigated his possible connections to Saudi intelligence. A couple of weeks after the two hijackers flew into Los Angeles from Malaysia, in February 2000, he had driven up to the city and met with Fahad al-Thumairy, a cleric employed by his country’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs who worked out of the Saudi Consulate. Thumairy, reported to be an adherent of extreme Wahhabi ideology — he was later denied a U.S. visa on grounds of jihadi connections — was also an imam of the King Fahad mosque in Los Angeles County, which the hijackers had visited soon after their arrival.
After meeting with Thumairy, Bayoumi had driven across town to a Middle Eastern restaurant where he “accidentally” encountered and introduced himself to Hazmi and Mihdhar. He invited them to move to San Diego, found them an apartment, paid their first month’s rent, helped them open a bank account, and introduced them to members of the local Saudi community, including his close friend Osama Bassnan.
During the time Bayoumi was catering to the hijackers’ needs, his salary as a ghost employee of the aviation company got a 700 percent boost; it was cut when they left town. That was not his only source of extra funds: After Hazmi and Mihdhar arrived in San Diego, Bassnan’s wife began signing over to Bayoumi’s wife the checks she received from the wife of the Saudi ambassador in Washington. The total value reportedly came to nearly $150,000.
Jacobson also found evidence, noted but seemingly ignored by the bureau, that Hazmi had worked for a San Diego businessman who had himself been the subject of an FBI counterterrorism investigation. Even more amazingly, the two hijackers had been close with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh. Hazmi had actually lived in his house after Mihdhar left town. Shaikh failed to mention his young Saudi friends’ last names in regular reports to his FBI case officer, or that they were taking flying lessons. Understandably, the investigators had a lot of questions for this man. Nevertheless, Mueller adamantly refused their demands to interview him, even when backed by a congressional subpoena, and removed Shaikh to an undisclosed location “for his own safety.” Today, Graham believes that Mueller was acting under orders from the White House.
Another intriguing document unearthed by the investigators in San Diego was a memo from July 2, 2002, discussing alleged financial connections between the September 11 hijackers, Saudi government officials, and members of the Saudi royal family. It stated that there was “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi Government.”
@ Daniel September 9, 2017 at 22:24
The small explosions heard by First Responders would not have been powerful enough to register on the seismographs; First Responders were not present (in any number) prior to the massive explosions in the sub-basements of WTC’s 1 & 2, just prior to the alleged ‘plane impacts’.
The initial explosions from the sub-basements were most assuredly picked up:
‘Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11’:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/seismic-evidence-implies-controlled-demolition-on-911/5313720
Explosions powerful enough to have brought down a multi-storey steel structured building in a controlled demolition scenario would have been picked up by seismographs. But good try.
@ Daniel September 11, 2017 at 14:41
As I said, the initial ones were, but the individual cutter charges after that, which were registered by the First Responders and a number of common-or-garden Joe’s and Jane’s, would not have been.
Comprende? Even a ‘Debunking’ site agrees on that!
So, yep, a good try, and a successful one.
Paul at 22.29. Sources please.
@ Daniel September 12, 2017 at 00:42
‘Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11’:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/seismic-evidence-implies-controlled-demolition-on-911/5313720
Paul at 22.29 (September 11) “Implies” is not evidence of a controlled demolition. But good try.
‘EXPLOSIONS BEFORE PLANE IMPACT: THE 9/11 ACCOUNT OF WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ’:
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/explosions-before-plane-impact-the-911-account-of-william-rodriguez/
‘It’s something you won’t hear about in the mainstream media. A loud, devastating explosion in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center’s North Tower BEFORE the impact of an airplane that hit between the 93rd and 99th floors.
That was the account of William Rodriguez, who was a 20-year employee of the World Trade Center when the towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001. He was later hailed as a national hero for pulling people out of the buildings, saving a number of lives that morning. He was believed to be the last person to escape the North Tower before it fell. He was even photographed with President George W. Bush. Now, the government doesn’t want to hear anything he has to say.
No matter how well known he is within the 9/11 Truth movement (in fact he’s one of its best known figures), very few others have heard the things he has to say – things that make the purveyors of the official story very nervous.
That’s because if what he reports is true, then the official story can’t be. That official version contends that airplane impacts and the resulting fires were solely responsible for the collapse of the twin towers. But if his account of explosions in the basement of the North Tower is true, then there must be a great deal more to the story…..’
Paul, so you take as matter of fact the testimony of an employee who has no expertise in ballistics as definitive evidence of a controlled demolition because he heard the sounds of bangs…Wow!
@ Daniel September 11, 2017 at 14:45
William Rodriguez claims sweet FA about any expertise in ballistics – he simply tell the truth about what he experienced. I for one accept his testimony, but the ‘9/11 Report’ made him give his evidence behind closed doors, and it wasn’t included in the ‘Report’. Vonder why? Nor were some 80-odd other witnesses he had gathered EVEN ALLOWED TO GIVE EVIDENCE.
You are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole; you don’t have a clue.
No, Paul, Rodriguez lied.
Also debunked at http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
Then their is William Rodriguez, a worker at the towers. He now says he heard explosions in the basement BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT HE SAID BEFORE HE BECAME A MEDIA STAR AND SUED THE GOVERNMENT. William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.
“We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture,” Rodriguez said. “And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/
Here he is describing something very different than an explosion. The change in his story came after he became a media star and plaintiff.
Mark Roberts does an in-depth investigation into William’s claims and history.
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
As loud as the collapse was, it sounded nothing like an actual controlled demolition.Conspiracy theorists take quotes out of context in order to sell the idea. An example of just how easy it is to take ear witness accounts out of context is below…
[Example video transcript:]
Government Train Wreck: How government covers up freight train accidents…
“The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php
[Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener really over there heads?]
“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming,” she said. “It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”
“It looks like it’s been bombed. There’s just a lot of destruction, a lot of debris,” said Michael Bartz, a state emergency official. ”
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02…nado/index.html
[Was it a bomb? Did a real freight train go down her road?]
“It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess.”
http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906
It came with “the roar of forty freight trains.”
http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm
“It sounded like a freight train”.
http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954
“Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train”
[enter image of NOAA weather map an hour before the tornado touches down.]
As you can see, there was no tornado on that day, according to NOAA.
So why is the government covering up train derailments?
[enter sinister music]
In 2003 Amtrak was going bankrupt. They couldn’t afford to rebuild the homes of Americans after a derailment.
ETC.. ETC..
Looks like someone had the same idea I did…
http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/
While the Titanic was sinking, passengers heard explosions in the ship. In this case, the “Official Story” would be wrong, using the same conspiracy theory logic. To this day, no one really knows what exactly caused the sound, only that it sounded like an explosion. Some say it was the steel snapping as the ship broke in two. Others say it was the hot steam engines hitting the cold water which exploded. Using Conspiracy Theory logic, it was blown up because witnesses characterized the sound as an “Explosion”.
@ Daniel September 11, 2017 at 14:59
I have a suspicion which planet you’re on, but I won’t go into that.
Suffice it to say, William Rodriguez testimony is freely available on the net (I’ve linked it before), and he was feted by the ‘PTB’, until he insisted on following his original testimony, that the first ‘incident’ in WTC 1 was a massive explosion below him (he was in basement level 1), and that throughout subsequent events (where it is acknowledged he saved about 15 people, and assisted Firefighters and other First Responders to rescue scores more) heard multiple explosions.
Wake up, sunshine. Like I said before, do a bit of homework.
Paul. I’ve done my homework, which is why, your ad hominem notwithstanding, I’ve debunked your claim about the reliability of Rodriguez.
Deep Politics researcher Joël van der Reijden writes that “in 2007 Jennings was blatantly lying to Alex Jones and the Loose Change crew about entering WTC 7 around 9:00 a.m. and the “explosion” in the stairwell taking place before either Twin Tower collapsed.”.[3] He continues “He changed his initial testimony, he lied, and he did it on purpose, just like another superstar of the 9/11 “truth” community, William Rodriguez. Hess and Jennings arrived at WTC 7 immediately after the OEM bunker was evacuated, which occurred around 9:37 a.m. There are still a few questions, but there’s every indication that the two experienced the collapse of the Twin Towers as they were trying to get out of the building.” Van der Reijden went into great detail on WTC 7 and tried to trace back the steps made by Hess and Jennings on 9/11 and when precisely they made them. [4]
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Barry_Jennings
@ Daniel September 11, 2017 at 15:27
Some time, I’ll check out the bonafides of your Joël van der Reijden.
Suffice it to say that very conveniently (for the ‘PTB’, Barry Jennings died 2 days before the NIST ‘Final Report’ was released – read ‘The Hit List’ and ‘Dead Wrong’ by Belzer and Wayne to see how remarkably prevalent it has been for people to ‘die’ just before they were due to testify, or might be called to do so, having ‘incriminating knowledge’ – think Clinton, and a rather staggering number of, shall we say, suspicious deaths? ). And what motive would Barry Jennings have had for lying?
William Rodriguez had every incentive for playing ball with the ‘PTB’; had he done so, he was a ‘Made Man’, but he followed his conscience and insisted on telling the truth.
Perhaps you can’t quite envisage such a thing – well, we have a shining example in the owner of this blog, who did precisely the same thing, giving up a brilliant career to tell the truth – Rodriguez was offered the world, but chose truth.
If some silly-born ass*oles call him a liar, I’m sure he is man enough to laugh at them.
Paul, Celebrity, fame and money that comes with it are obvious motives. I’ve already explained this obvious point. So he died 2 days before the NIST report release. What’s the relevance? Oh, that’s right, another conspiracy theory? LOL. Coincidences happen.
I took the time to check out the source of your quote from Joël van der Reijden – something you evidently didn’t do yourself. He indeed has a bee in his bonnet about Barry Jennings testimony, but it forms only a tiny part of a huge article headlined :
“WHATEVER HAPPENED – BELIEF IN WTC EXPLOSIVES WIDESPREAD ON 911 – UNTIL AUTHORITIES DENIED IT; EVIDENCE OF HUGE EXPLOSIONS, RAPID FLASHES AND LIQUID STEEL; NIST REPORT BASED ON PURE FRAUD.”by Joël van der Reijden”
He documents in great detail why he believes all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Anticipating that you won’t check out this link to the source ….
https://isgp-studies.com/911-evidence-for-explosives-and-thermite-at-WTC
…. I have gone to the trouble of copying some of the chapter headings for you:
WTC 1 and 2
2. Building specifics
3. Zones and crashing elevators
4. Impact damage
5. Fire damage, anomalies and destruction of evidence
6. NIST’s refusal to explain the entire collapse
7. Massive fraud in NIST’s WTC 7 investigation
8. Summary of NISI failures
Deeper into explosives and the extreme heat
9. Numbers and into to reported explosions, flashes and molten steel
10. Primary testimony WTC 1-2: Reports of explosions, mainly during collapses
WTC 2: Power down top half weekend before 9/11 and evacuation drills
WTC 1-2: Basement, lobby and evacuation-related testimony
WTC 2: Floors buckling and early suspicions of collapse
WTC 1: The top buckling, “glowing red” and early suspicions of collapse
WTC 7: Reports of explosions after the collapses of WTC 1 and 2
WTC 7: Foreknowledge of collapse / controlled demolition plans
WTC 7: Evidence of demolition
WTC 1-2-7: Flaws in the investigation of the physical evidence
WTC 1-2-7: Post-collapse: reports of molten metal/steel
WTC 1-2-7: Testimony of WTC designers and related experts
WTC 1-2-7: Key survivor accounts of FDNY chiefs
12. Calculating the moment of the initial loud boom
13. Confirmation: Rumble and loud boom when WTC 2 still standing tall
14. Smoke puffs, rapid gas expansions, and sequential <0.1 second flashes
15. Thermite: theory and history
16. Thermite on 9/11: evidence and denial
17. Massive heat, massive amounts of thermate?
18. Likely locations of the explosives and thermate
19. Chronology of the impacts and potential demolition
20. Summary: why controlled demolition should not be dismissed 21. Notes
Interesting that someone YOU chose as an authoritative voice on 911 should believe so strongly in controlled demolition. You complain about Truthers "cherry picking" the evidence. You have cited van der Reijden's evidence to support your theories. Do you stand by the rest of his opinions as well?
Good post Node.
It would appear that Daniel is often completely unfamiliar with the work he cites to support his views, eg Bazant’s untested hypothesis that the Towers could have progressively collapsed.
Nikko,
Your assertion that the 19 hijackers on 9/11 is a conspiracy theory is false:
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf
Daniel, if you are quoting me please have the decency to quote me accurately.
Your link to a CIA page with mugshots of 19 Arabs is proof of what exactly?
Nikko, Oh, that’s right, by default, the official explanation is wrong…LOL. It’s incumbent upon you to support your conspiracy theory.
It’s incumbent on you to answer Nikko’s question.
This thread just continues to be absurd, claiming things like the 19 hijackers had nothing to do with it while the POTUS And FLPOTUS pass unnoticed as they can only listen silently to the bulge call taps for the 9/11 victims as if they were military personnel killed in the war, a real bit of irony about the real plot that killed them.
The footage shows firemen and cops moving people back from WTC 7 saying the building is ‘about to blow up’. Whereupon there is an explosion and the building collapses, at freefall speed for some of the time, and exhibiting the hallmarks of a controlled demolition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A
To me that CNN footage means exactly what it says on the tin, Building 7 was blown up. Presumably you don’t think that, so can you tell me what your explanation of the footage is?
How many controlled demolitions have you witnessed in which said demolitions have been undertaken amid death, chaos, confusion and destruction (ie the conditions on 9/11?). Controlled demolitions do not take place in circumstances in which fireman and cops move people out of harms way moments before such a “controlled” process takes place but are planned and executed way ahead in safe and secure conditions so not as to endanger anybody. They do not happen in chaotic conditions where the building about to be demolished has been struck by debris from other buildings and where the said building has been on fire for 7 hours prior to demolition.
The level of cognitive dissonance among truthers is extraordinary
@ Anthony September 11, 2017 at 23:08
I certainly don’t discount mini-nukes. But Nanothermite/ate was used, in conjunction with other explosive devices.
Unspent nano chips were found in abundance (nought to do with nukes, mini or not), as were tiny iron spherules, absolutely indicative of thermite, in all dust samples.
Paul at 23.26 debunked here:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
@ Daniel September 12, 2017 at 00:54
I am not reading through all of that; nanothermite/ate was proved to have been present, by unburnt chips and iron spherules in all the dust samples checked.
If you want to believe otherwise, so be it.
Nano-thermite expert, Paul (Dec12, 2017) Your response to the fact that your claims have been debunked, is “I’m not reading through all that.”…LOL
@ Daniel September 11, 2017 at 20:03
WTC 7 was not rigged for demolition ON 9/11, but like WTC’s 1 & 2, well before.
Quote me one ‘Truther’ (I mean like a real one) who claims WTC 7 was rigged ON 9/11.
Strawman argument.
Strawman. I didn’t mention anything about “when” it was rigged. Please answer the question. I’ll repeat it. Why would a controlled demolition happen under circumstances where the said “controlled” demolition happened in an obviously uncontrolled environment? Also what were the motives. Please answer.
“Controlled demolitions do not take place in circumstances in which (….etc,) but are planned and executed way ahead (….etc.) They do not happen in (…..etc.)”
This is tantamount to sayng that the US govt. didn’t “do” 9/11 because the US govt. doesn’t do that kind of thing.
@ Daniel September 12, 2017 at 01:00
What difference would it make how chaotic events appeared to be? To those who planned it, it was not chaotic at all – everything went to plan. All they had to do was push a few buttons, and the pre-positioned explosives and nanothermite/ate does its work.
It is not a case of going into the buildings and lighting umpteen ‘blue touch papers’ and running.
Do a bit of research yourself for motives.
When Halsey’s work has been ‘Peer Reviewed’, it will prove the Government Narrative on how WTC 7 came down is impossible, so motives are irrelevant, the case will be proven.
Daniel floats another strawman in his Incontroverti-bull article. He says :
“Despite all this, realists are somehow expected to believe that either:
a) “Explosives” were planted when the buildings were erected. That would require the longest conspiracy planning in history.
or ….”
Quote me one ‘Truther’ (I mean like a real one) who claims WTC 7 was rigged for demolition while it was being built.
Strawman argument.
Daniel,
You wrote “To me that CNN footage means exactly what it says on the tin, Building 7 was blown up.”
Who do you think blew it up, how did they blow it up and why did they blow it up?
(especially under such chaotic conditions)
Your point about controlled demolitions, not normally taking place under such chaotic conditions is very valid, yet the evidence strongly suggests that, that is exactly what happenned, rather than something (what?) caused Building 7 to be blown up.
Tony
Tony,
The piece you quote from Daniel was actually my original question to him which he repeats here confusingly without attributing it. He hasn’t answered and repeats it here without answering. Instead he asks an unrelated question namely, how many controlled demolitions in chaotic circumstances have I seen?
Answer not one actually. So what?
Will Daniel give the same simple straightforward answer to my question?
Reminder: the CNN footage shows firemen and cops moving people back from WTC 7 saying the building is ‘about to blow up’. Whereupon there is an explosion and the building collapses.
What does he think the firemen mean if they don’t mean what they are actually saying?
@ Tony_0pmoc September 12, 2017 at 06:27
As I have said before, I know of no ‘Truther’ who believes it was rigged with explosives on the day of 9/11; it was clearly pre-planned, and rigged long before, just like the Twin Towers.
And again, Barry Jennings’ testimony that the staits ‘blew up’ while both Towers were still standing means the whole caboodle was planned beforehand. Stairs are traditionally rigged to blow up early in the demolition.
@ Daniel
September 11, 2017 at 20:03
‘…Controlled demolitions do not take place in circumstances in which fireman and cops move people out of harms way moments before such a “controlled” process takes place but are planned and executed way ahead in safe and secure conditions so not as to endanger anybody. They do not happen in chaotic conditions where the building about to be demolished has been struck by debris from other buildings and where the said building has been on fire for 7 hours prior to demolition….’
You should have said ‘..Controlled demolitions do not NORMALLY take place in circumstances in which fireman and cops move people out of harms way moments before such a “controlled” process takes place but are planned and executed way ahead in safe and secure conditions so not as to endanger anybody….’
But in this case, one of the prime objectives WAS to harm a great number of people (that was why the people who evacuated WTC 2 after WTC 1 was ‘attacked’ were told to go back into the Tower – many lost their lives because of that murderous instruction).
Much like Pearl Harbour – Roosevelt and the Military High Command knew the precise attack plans of the Japanese, but didn’t warn Pearl, because they desperately wanted (and had plotted for) Japan to attack America, to give them a casus belli. Roosevelt wanted to get into WW II, but only 16% of Americans wanted it.
The day after Pearl Harbour, 1 million men signed up under arms. The ‘trick’ worked a treat.
And remember, PNAC called for the desirability of a ‘New Pearl Harbour’ – so it was created.
And as I have already shown you, Barry Jennings said the stairs blew up WHILE BOTH TOWERS WERE STILL STANDING, not after WTC 7 had been burning for 7 hours.
Of course, you can choose not to believe him, as it doesn’t fit the ‘Government Narrative’.
There is a theory put forth by Dimitri Khalezov that a nuclear device, planted at a sufficient depth below each tower, could have caused the collapse and complete pulverization of concrete and moltenization of steel that was seen. I assume you are aware of the extreme temperatures that were recorded for 3 months at the WTC site.
Anyway, a plot involving a nuclear device would require FAR fewer co-conspirators. Not only could this be done with a very small team, but it would reduce the number of individuals needed to plant thermite shape charges throughout the rest of the core columns. I’m sorry, but the evidence of a controlled demolition of ALL 3 towers is just to much to overcome.
@ Anthony September 11, 2017 at 23:08
I certainly don’t discount mini-nukes. But Nanothermite/ate was used, in conjunction with other explosive devices.
Unspent nano chips were found in abundance (nought to do with nukes, mini or not), as were tiny iron spherules, absolutely indicative of thermite, in all dust samples.
@ Anthony September 11, 2017 at 23:08
Never worry about the number of ‘co-conspirators’ – the number of ‘crisis actors’ on recent ‘terrorist attacks’ should be indication enough that, yep, people will happily go along with atrocities and faked ones.#
Old Nick can always provide the ‘soldiers’ to further the abominations of the crepes who have sold their souls to ‘IT’ (rhythms, oddly enough, with sh*t). And I mean, serious, big time.
Am I going to be in deep doo-doo if I slip up and St. Pete doesn’t let me in! Aaaargh, gee Mr. Shaitan, I was only joking….
I should worry, already!!
Just a genuine question with hopefully clear answers from all the ‘experts’ on both sides here.
As a result of what transpires according to the official reports that an unprecedented occurrence of the collapse of not just one, but three steel reinforced buildings, and through two totally different causal factors, something which has therefore required a revision of the premise that the design of these buildings was supposed to make almost impossible; has this resulted in :
1. The revision of design features that may have led to this catastrophic failure and thereby new regulations governing the design of such buildings?
2. A review and rigorous application of procedures and inspections of the buildings as they are being built to ensure safety?
To me these are the rigorous tests as to whether we should believe the official story or not. Looking forward to many replies.
@ SA September 12, 2017 at 05:42
My understanding is that the WTC buildings were regularly checked for safety reasons, and I don’t believe any new regulations have been put in place.
But if you wish to be certain, contact Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth via their website.
Yep, A & Es for truth, the conspiracy theorists bible will have the truth…LOL
@ Daniel September 12, 2017 at 21:59
They will likely have the truthful answer, but you fire away with your ‘LOLS’.
Why don’t you comment on a more appropriate website for your intelligence level? Like, ‘frinstance:
http://lewstringer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/this-weeks-beano.html
I’m sure they will welcome you (and a bonus is you won’t get anyone trying to bring in inconvenient facts that refute your tripe).
By the way, tripe used to be quite a delicacy for Britons; nowadays it is generally fed to dogs and other domestic animals.
@ Daniel September 12, 2017 at 21:59
By the way, can I safely assume you have no problem whatsoever with the ‘Official Narrative’ that a pristine passport from one of the ‘alleged’ hijackers was found in the WTC dust?
If so, can you please explain how it came to be there? Did he pop it out of the ‘window’ just before impact?
Or was it made of some remarkable paper OBL had perfected in his cave, which could easily withstand fires that supposedly were so ferocious that they could bring down a 110 story steel-framed Tower (and which fires were not seen from outside as being particularly ‘ferocious’)?
Please answer, as you would say.
Daniel
It would be interesting to get your take on why no new regulations have resulted from such three catastrophic failures in one day due to two separate causes as obviously such unexpected failures should result not only in building regulations change but also in inspections of all similar buildings as which what has happened after Grenfell. I am not aware of such changes but you might know better.
Any chance of a response from Daniel?
Yes, they could not have fallen as they did without some weakening below. Structural steel reinforces skyscrapers and makes them almost impossible to destroy through normal disasters. Only yesterday Miami, with the third tallest skyline in the States, was hit by hurricane Irma. Its skyscrapers swayed in winds well exceeding 100 mph (as they are designed to do) but not one of them came down. We would soon hear about it if one did.
I am proud to have been on the side of the truthseekers in this debate.
John , my point is that after Grendel there was a revision of cladding and fire protection, still under assessment, so as to reduce the risk of future repeats of the failure. Surely if 911 caused such a catastrophic failure this should have resulted in a review of why this happened and acted upon.
I asked this very same question last year :
Is it plausible that 3 steel framed buildings fell that day due to office fires when not a single one had previously fallen for that reason? If normal office fires were the cause of this triple catastrophe, surely there will have been wholesale changes in building regulations?
The One World Trade Center replaced the World Trade Center. Here are the extra safety measures introduced as a result of 9/11.
# Elevators housed in protected central building core
# Protected tenant collection point on each floor
# Dedicated staircase for firefighters
# Extra-wide pressurized staircases
# Concrete-protected sprinklers, emergency risers, and communication systems
They tweaked the sprinklers! That’s it! The rest are rescue and evacuation measures. No change in construction methods to stop truss joint failure, no improved steel quality to raise ‘softening’ temperature, no specification for less flammable fixtures & fittings.
If it is plausible that the buildings fell due to office fires, it is implausible that so little effort has been made to stop it happening again.
I was unable to find any any significant changes in building regulations as a result of 911. Kempe and Clark argued the toss but couldn’t point to any either. The discussion started here :
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-97/#comment-627719
@ SA September 12, 2017 at 13:00
‘…Surely if 911 caused such a catastrophic failure this should have resulted in a review of why this happened and acted upon.’
But of course, they already know how and why this occurred.
As for Grenfell, many countries have already got stringent laws and prohibitions on the use of cladding, never mind flammable cladding.
They played dice with the lives of 80-odd people to save some money, and the people paid with their lives.
The following link might help, or you could contact Firefighters for 9/11 Truth from their website:
‘Sudden Building Collapse: An Evaluation of a New Risk in Operational Fire-fighting’:
https://www.ff911truthandunity.org/single-post/Sudden-Building-Collapse-An-Evaluation-of-a-New-Risk-in-Operational-Fire-fighting
Paul
An official story requires official actions. None happened.
SA
You are quite right of course. The authorities moved very swiftly after the Grenfell Tower disaster, but nothing was done about building regulations after 9/11.
I know I have seen a number of presentations from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that outline the point that nothing was done but I don’t have time to search for them. I did find this online article that goes into the matter in some detail, but I can’t vouch for the credentials of the author.
A sample paragraph:
Despite its grandiose claims, NIST knows that the building community has ignored the WTC investigation findings. That’s clear from NIST’s own tracking sheet on its website. This tracks all 30 recommendations from the NIST WTC investigation and lists the code “outcomes” from each.[19] As of August 2011, the most recent update, not one NIST recommendation related to progressive global collapse, “widely dislodged” fireproofing, or linear thermal expansion has been adopted.
https://digwithin.net/2012/09/07/are-tall-buildings-safer/
I remember thinking after Popular Mechanics published its own landmark debunking piece in which it said,
‘…that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper….’
that this would imply that all the offices in the world were now potential death traps. No one seemed concerned, though. I never checked but I am pretty sure Popular Mechanics did not move their offices somewhere safer than an office.
King
Thanks for the link, it addresses very well the question I asked.
@ Daniel September 12, 2017 at 00:41
‘Paul, I have utter respect for the victims of 9/11 which is precisely why I won’t indulge in conspiracy theories that besmirch the memory of the vast majority of families who lost loved ones on that fateful day. As for David Ray Griffin, his credentials are worthless in the context of 9/11’
Pity you don’t have ‘utter respect’ for the millions who have died, and those whose countries have been devastated, and who are now homeless refugees, whose countries have been invaded and devastated under the umbrella of the 9/11 False Flag ‘Inside Job’.
And again, the relatives of 9/11 victims who asked questions were treated with the utmost disdain by the government officials, with the greater part (I think it was about 85%) of their questions left unanswered.
If I had a relative or friend who had died in the 9/11 events, I would want to know who did it; I would not want to be fobbed off with a pack of lies (as it happens, a friend of mine had a relative who just escaped from one of the Towers – he believes 9/11 was an ‘Inside Job’; as well as the brother of a victim I have referred to already, who knows it was).
And remember the 4 or 5 big IRA cases in the UK, where in all cases the innocent people spent years in jail, fitted up by the British police and ‘Justice System’, only to be absolved years later.
By ‘fitting up’ innocent people, the real murderers of course got off scot free, just like the real mass-murdering Luciferian scumbags who REALLY caused 9/11.
Daniel
The logic of your argument would seem to be that if one suspects the official account of a crime is false one should keep quiet about it because to pipe up would somehow insult the memories of the victims. Do you really think that? Wouldn’t the dead, if they could speak, want you to establish the truth? I know I would.
cf. Barrie Zwicker in “Towers of Deception”:
A common mistake concerning 9/ 11 is to confuse great sympathy for the victims with great certainty about the identity of the perpetrators. You see it in on-line chat rooms: one person says he’s convinced that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Immediately, someone responds with “Don’t you understand that 3,000 innocent people died that day?!” This mother of all non sequiturs is encouraged by the dark forces behind the demolitions. False-flag operations are designed to inflame emotions and overcome rational thought. The confusion reinforces the Big Lie.
@ George September 12, 2017 at 16:26
Barrie Zwicker is great – I believe this was the first major video he made re 9/11:
‘The Great Conspiracy | The 9 11 News Special You Never Saw | Barrie Zwicker’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X18ajOBFhM
It’s hard to get Israeli stuff past the Mods but I give you this article for acceptance or correction. The book it reviews is by Albert Jack who also seems to be called Bankok Jack.
http://bangkokjack.com/2017/09/11/911-conspiracy-israeli-art-students-2/
@ John Goss September 12, 2017 at 16:25
Isn’t it obvious WHY Israeli stuff is hard to get by the mods?
Doesn’t Craig’s present problems stem from the same source he tries (understandedbly) not to give ammunition to, which did he not have stringent levels of moderation, any ‘agent provocateur’ could introduce scurrilous anti-Israeli / anti-Jewish BS, so as to smear Craig?
Should be plain as a pike staff.
I haven’t checked your link, but it really is ridiculous to blame the mods for over-zealousness (this comment might well be held up by the auto-words – no prob).
John Goss September 12, 2017 at 16:25
Interesting article – puts all the stuff neatly together. I knew much of it already, but not about Hanan Serfaty.
An Israeli bomb expert among the Gelatin team! Surprising they weren’t even more audacious, and called themselves Nano-thermite!
Interesting article, John. I seem to remember shortly after 9/11 CBS did an in-depth investigation into the art students and their connections to 9/11. This was in the early days before they learned this aspect of the subject was taboo. The programme was quickly spiked, but was available online for some time. I haven’t seen it for a while.
Daniel,
If “The Truth” of 9/11, has finally hit you, then you have my deepest sympathies
When it finally hit me in February 2003, it felt that I had been physically kicked very hard in the guts.
If you feel like that, do not do what I did, which was to tell everyone I knew.
Do not tell your freinds and family. Do not tell your colleagues at work. Do not tell anyone, unless they bring it up in conversation, and even then it is highly advisable to keep quiet.
Otherwise, almost all of them, will think you are having a nervous breakdown. They will think you have gone mad.
It simply is not worth the aggravation, potential loss of family, friends and job.
Just keep quiet about it. You are never going to change their views, so don’t even try.
If they haven’t got it by now, they never will.
Most people can’t handle the truth, that our Western Governments are that evil – despite the fact that for the last 16 years, they have been committing mass genocide in numerous countries around the world of completely innocent people.
That is just the way it is. Find me any British politician or journalist who has had the courage to tell the truth, who is still alive / let alone gainfully employed.
They are all frightened, so they keep their mouth’s shut.
Even John Pilger won’t go there, nor Julian Assange, nor Edward Snowden.
I can’t believe they don’t know. They just want to stay alive.
Tony
@ Tony_0pmoc September 12, 2017 at 21:25
Very happy to meet (on this blog) the REAL Tony_0pmoc.
What a breath of fresh air!
By the way, a major politician who did go a long way to addressing 9/11, Michael Meacher, did indeed come to a sticky end.
He was going to show ‘Loose Change’ in the House of Commons, Jeremy Corbyn had booked him a room, when he was warned off, that he would end up ‘sleeping with the fishes’.
He pulled out, but continued to give very good interviews about 9/11.
He died, unexpectedly, shortly after Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party.
Check out ‘Michael Meacher + 9/11’; he even prefaced one of David Ray Griffin’s books!
God bless, Michael; RIP.
Yes, a great MP. I heard him speak at the Bilderberg fringe held at the Grove Hotel in Watford four years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jun/10/bilderberg-fringe-michael-meacher-video
On the agenda that weekend was “The Challenge of Africa”. There was not a single African invited to the Grove. It reminded me of the Great Powers carve up of Africa. They do not want the indigeneous people or their leaders to know what they have planned for them.
Michael Meacher used to be my MP, when I lived in Oldham, many years ago. At the time, my older brother was a member of The Young Conservatives, The Territorial Army, and a supporter of The Vietnam War, whilst I went to see Harold Wilson on a Fruit Box in Oldham Market. Otherwise we got on really well.
Just listen to how Bibi describes the 9/11 attack in this short clip.
https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status/907291968690155521
I have a revulsion for calling a racist murderer with a pet name, it is as if it is a term of endearment.
Me too. It is Netanyahu who is the terrorist, him and his US collaborators in wholesale murder. Suicide is the only way for this man to wipe terrorism from the face of the earth.
I totally agree. He was well behind what went on in New York and probably even London, in my opinion.
@ KingofWelshNoir September 13, 2017 at 08:42
Even Fox News was good on it (though this is a bad quality copy):
‘The Notorious Banned FOX 9 11 2001 News Footage Israeli Mossad Links’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVXrvOMPS2o
Daniel, could you outline what is the strongest available evidence, in your opinion, for the official narrative, specifically, I mean that these attacks were orchestrated by a bearded religious fanatic in far-off Afghanistan.
My point, Jonathan, is that because there are perceived gaps in the official narrative doesn’t entitle the truth movement to fill in those gaps with unsubstantiated assertions and then present the said assertions as evidence based facts. I find it extraordinary that otherwise intelligent people can seriously contend that a controlled demolitions could have conceivably happened in what were obviously uncontrollable circumstances. This is personification of cognitive dissonance.
@ Jonathan Revusky September 13, 2017 at 11:13
Notice how Daniel completely ignores your question?
Paul at 15.19, If you were to ask 100 people what they thought the official narrative is, they would likely give you 100 different variations on what their perception of their version of the official narrative is. Jonathan’s version of what he perceives the official narrative to be won’t necessarily be the definitive version (whatever that is). So, with respect, the question cannot be answered with any reliability or accuracy because it is predicated on a set of assumptions – either real or imagined. The devil is in the detail and as neither you, as an internet specialist in ballistics, physics, structural engineering, nano thermite and historical timelines in relation to 9/11, or presumably Jonathan, are priyy to such details, the question is superfluous.
Daniel, you came in here to tell us that we are wrong to doubt the offical narrative and now you are telling us that you do not know what the official narrative is. You are an excellent bullshitter.
Nikko, Other than the broad narrative that it was blowback, there are as many narratives as there are those who propose them. By claiming it was an inside job, truthers deny agency. In other words, they deny that those who suffer at the hands of US imperialism have a legitimate grievance against this imperialism sufficient enough to want to attack the US. Or are you now going to claim that 9/11 wasn’t the consequence of blowback? Of course you aren’t because you are a truther…LOL
@ Daniel September 13, 2017 at 15:47
The Official Narrative is OBL controlled his band of merry men via a laptop, whilst under dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan.
A part also claims that one of the alleged hijackers passports magically managed to survive the fiery inferno and was ‘found’ in the WTC dust.
Do you believe either of those things?
Or that Hani Hanjour, who months before 9/11 wasn’t competant to fly a Cessna, did he impossible aerobatics that the ‘pilot’ of the ‘plane’ that is alleged to have hit the Pentagon did?
Or that 8 or 9 of the ‘alleged’ hijackers are still alive?
‘Alleged Hijackers Alive and Well (updated from archives)’:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/worldmessenger_alive.html
You know the general gist of the ‘Official Narrative’; you are right that no one knows the whole, because their narratives change, and often contradict each other and in almost all respects contradict reality and truth.
But you choose to attack the Truthers, rather than the government, who had everything to gain by the 9/11 attacks.
Paul, the general gist is that it was blowback. Anything beyond that in terms of detail is largely conjecture that neither you or I or anybody else is able to comment on with absolute certainty.
The gist of the official narrative is that 19 bearded men, under the direction of another bearded man in a cave, hijacked 4 planes. Two of the planes hit the Twin Towers which caused 3 buildings to collapse (all symmetrical collapses at or near free fall through the path of greatest resistance as a result of asymmetric damage), the third plane disappeared inside the Pentagon through a hole smaller than itself and the last plane buried itself in the ground such that none of it was found.
The question you were asked was which piece of evidence for this you found most compelling, not what was the motive.
The 9/11 Commission Report is the biggest crock of shit that America has ever proved, not making everyone involved showing up immediately to explain what happened, iike FBI Director Robert Mueller, and not taking an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth, and allowing GW and Cheney to testify without taking any oath at all, neither did the Commissioners themselves,
To talk about anything being proved is just nonsense, like not inquiring into the first 9/11 victm’s death, that of Yale student Suzanne Jovin predicting apparently in her senior thesis in December 1998 that Osama was going to do it again with planes, and for which she was brutally murdered.
Trowbridge, So what’s your point? It wasn’t blowback?
My point is that it was blowback of a US government plot to catch the 19 alleged hijackers red=handed when they flew the planes to LA, and it all proved a complete fiasco when they proved suicide bombers, requiring Washington leaders involved to lie through their teeth after it occurred.
@ Trowbridge, the mad cap theories theories get increasingly convoluted. It’s hard to keep up…LOL
And Trowbridge, can you explain to me why AQ received so much support, direct and indirect by the west and thier allies in Syria?
Daniel
I don’t think it is up to any of us to postulate what we think the real answer is but merely to point out so many inconsistencies not only in the narrative of how 911 occurred but also all the other aspects of how the investigation was carried out and what preventative action was then taken to prevent this fluke happening again of 3 steel framed building collapsing for two different reasons, in one day, an event that has not occurred before or since. I am sure you know all the circumstances, from the standing down of all air force activity, the absence of any evidence of a plane in the pentagon, the fanciful cell phone calls from a plane when it was not possible at the time, the destruction of primary evidence by the FBI, the intact passport, the coincidence of the discovered suitcase by one of the supposed perpetrators, the lack of a “Wanted” call out on OBL by the FBI, the Anthrax attack, the circumstances surrounding the investigation, the destruction of all evidence at the scene of the crime and I can go on and on. In other words it was a collection of hens teeth in such a profusion that it was all statistically impossible for all these coincidences to be explained by implicating 19 mainly Saudis with wire cutters to hijack 4 planes and cause all of this. Moreover the subsequent actions taken, the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq which were really completely unrelated to the event, the evacuation of the Saudi Royal and other families as the first planes to leave US air space after 911, the lack of implication of the Saudi government despite the supposed evidence and so on and so on.
So really none of us knows why and how 911 happened but we know that thee has been a deliberate muddying of the waters. It is really not up to me or anybody to then say or postulate whether it is blowback, inside job and so on but we must all agree that the all the events and thier explanations do not really make sense.
I certainly know the American counter terrorists should have arrested the 19 suicide bombers when they tried to get on the planes to use as bombs.
You are just barking mad about the Pentagon not being hit, and no phone calls from the plane victims, especially Barbara Olson, wife of lying Solicitor General Ted Olson.
You should stop relying on what looneys like Jim Fetzer claim..
Trowbridge
I am sure you may have some more information and I am just dependant on what others write, but bonkers? Is that a clinical diagnosis? Are you qualified to make this diagnosis?
Anyway. I believe that there has been no footage shown of any plane debris in front of the pentagon and that the manoeuvre to hit that building with a plane would have required an ace pilot. But then who am I? I mere bonkers person.
All I know is that there is a lot of fluff, official and otherwise in the 911 story, it is of interest that you have picked up on just these two that I mentioned.
Trowbrige at 17.51. It goes without saying that the US authorities were negligent, but negligence in and of itself doesn’t imply they were necessarily complicit in a false flag. This thesis, I’m sure you’ll agree, stretches credulity beyond the bounds of any reasonable doubt. I mean you would have to be insane to believe that the neocons who were incapable of convincing the world about Iraqi WMD were competent enough to pull of such a feat.
I said you were barking nonsense by claiming that the Pentagon was not hit by American Airlines, Flight 77. piloted that day by Hani Hanjour, a pilot who had received a commercial pilot’s license by the FAA in 1999. He was the most experienced pilot of the four.
To claim otherwise makes me wonder about one’s sanity, given all the victims on the plane, the victims of all the personnel in the building, and their survivors; claims. We are not talking about UFOs.
And I don’t bother about pure speculations of some alleged importance or surprises.
What is really strange is that supposedly sane persons believe that a building of 47 storeys can just crumble on it footprint having been hit by debris which has caused office fires. What is even stranger is that the law regarding precautions to stop this happening again has not really been formulated.
OK I never said who did it but such degree of negligence on such a scale is amazing, no one was indicted.
Until I can get an answer to these questions that convince me I shall remain suspicious as to who is really the conspiracy theorist.
SA, I agree but that’s not what truther’s do.
Trowbridge at 19.03. Indeed. See the Rationalwiki rebuttals below. I do question the sanity of these denialists.