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).
SA at 18.20
The one video camera on the scene that was actually trained on the site of the crash was a time-lapse camera that flipped from a vague shot of the beginning of something incoming to a full-blown explosion. 9/11 truthers have argued that without a direct image of an airplane in the security footage, it can’t be proven that what hit the Pentagon was actually a plane. They back up this claim by saying that there was no plane visible in the post-crash pictures. Adherents of this theory are sometimes called “no-planers,” though the term has generally come to be associated with the biggest cranks in the movement who believe no planes hit the WTC either.[37]
Rebuttal: There were six frames from a security camera showing impact released after a FOIA request.[38] Furthermore, there is photographic evidence of wreckage on the scene and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage and damage consistent with a plane crash.[39] Essentially, the problem for no-planers is that the plane did not just hit the outside of the Pentagon, but actually penetrated some distance into the structure, some of which actually collapsed on top of the plane. Numerous witnesses saw it approach, the plane’s wings took out several light posts on a nearby roadway on the way in, and plane components were scattered all over the Pentagon lawn.
Also, although inconclusive (and “personal commentary”) a photo was presented on a 9/11 truther website claiming that the “round” debris observed was not possibly the wheel of the alleged jetliner. However, it clearly was, albeit stripped of its outer edge.
In any case, why would anyone expect a high-res video camera to be pointed at the exact spot where the plane hit? The intrinsic improbability of such a circumstance would make it direct evidence of a conspiracy, and no self-respecting conspiracy would allow evidence of its existence to remain.
The damage at the Pentagon is not large enough to have been caused by a passenger jet[edit]
Rebuttal: These claims rely on the remote assessment of non-specialists against the on-site investigation of experts on structural engineering. The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building with blast-resistant windows. It was struck by an aluminum-skinned commercial aircraft that had already lost a wing before hitting the building: such an aircraft is mostly empty space, with voids in the wings for fuel and the fuselage for passengers; only the floor of the passenger compartment, the undercarriage and the engine cores are particularly solid objects. The damage is consistent with this scenario: nobody but truthers would seriously expect a cartoony plane-shaped hole–.[40]
If people driving near the Pentagon who apparently were witnesses of the plane actually saw it, it would have blown them off[edit]
Rebuttal: Not proven, and insignificant. (See rebuttal to the next point.)
Other evidence suggests it was a missile that hit the Pentagon[edit]
Rebuttal: The preponderance of evidence suggests that a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon. An aircraft is known to have gone missing, the wreckage of the same aircraft was found at the Pentagon, and the damage was what structural engineers expected from such a strike. If the alleged conspirators went to this level of effort to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon, why then use a missile? Using a plane would be simpler (as you already have one ready for the task), and there wouldn’t be the risk of discovery. Further still, most cruise missiles have payloads that are actually quite small. The jet may well have more kinetic energy than the missile has explosive energy, and the jet also has considerably more energy in jet fuel than its own weight in cruise missiles.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11
Just concentrating on one event is not really my aim. And in any case despite this rather supposedly highly visible event the visual evidence is rather scanty. However, moving on:
Anthrax
War on Afghanistan and Iraq
Absence of direct legal indictment of the individuals supposedly carrying the atrocity.
The coincidence of 3 events defying the normal rules of Newtonian physics with no adequate explanation.
The intact passport as pointed out by Paul.
Destruction of evidence both of tapes and of physical evidence.
The lack of disciplining anyone who was responsible for security.
The absence of any meaningful action to prevent these rare events happening.
There are many others but let us not get distracted let us just admit that it just doesn’t add up. The real conspiracy has not really been revealed.
So ignore and “just move on”…Not with me.
You just did all the others.
Have you got something to say about the anthrax and the mysterious passport survival.
Just going on with more nonsense, diversions, and coincidents.
There were phone calls from the planes in Time magazine at the time, and I shall bring them out if you persist.
The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were to make out that they were totally responsible for the disasters.
What does an alleged passport prove when there is a scene of vast destruction.
I guess you are holding back on the alleged planes to be involved still iexist
No American culprit was ever prosecuted because it would bring down the others, like Tenet and Senator David Boren getting Cheney and GW. The same for disicpliinng any marginal culprits. The suicide bombers are all dead,
@ Trowbridge H. Ford September 13, 2017 at 19:48
‘Just going on with more nonsense, diversions, and coincidents….’
As is you’re wont so often, it is YOU who are spouting nonsense. What is diversionary about a claimed alleged passport being found pristine in the dust? How could that have occurred? That is even more unbelievable than the JFK ‘magic bullet’.
‘…The suicide bombers are all dead,…’
The ‘alleged’ suicide bombers are NOT all dead:
‘Revealed: the men with stolen identities’:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1341391/Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html
‘MANY 9-11 “HIJACKERS” ARE STILL ALIVE’:
http://pentagonmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MANY-9-11-HIJACKERS-ARE-STILL-ALIVE-Review.pdf
There are many other sites which PROVE that some of the ‘alleged hijackers’ are still alive.
So, you could say, someone else used their passports and identities – sure, that would be a possibility (assuming anyone did hijack any aircraft on 9/11) – but how come the US government and MSM are still using those names?
If ‘someone’ stole passports, then how does anyone know what nationality they were? They could have been Americans, or Welshmen, or Germans, or Israelis, or Filipinos etc. Why keep blaming Saudi Arabia for their origins, or Morocco, or any other country, when if so many of the ‘alleged hijackers’ was using a false identity, so no one knows who they really were, or what country they came from (still supposing there were any hijackers on 9/11).
And your ‘piece de resistance’: @ September 13, 2017 at 19:03:
‘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.’
‘….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…..’
Are you trying to bring the house down? A stand-up comedian you ain’t.
Barking nonsense, but by you, I’m afraid. It seems everyone but you is aware Hani Hanjour was not even competent to fly a Cessna just months before 9/11.
And one of the ‘alleged hijackers’ was said to be an airforce pilot in his country, so would presumably been a lot more experienced than Hani Hanjour.
It is clear to me you haven’t a clue about 9/11, or if you have, you certainly aren’t letting on…
@ Daniel September 13, 2017 at 16:37
‘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.’
You cannot comment on any facet of the Government ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’, yet you have no problem at all with commenting adversely on virtually anything Truthers say.
You won’t even comment on the few points I put above, or on Jonathan Revusky’s question today, September 13, 2017 at 11:13:
‘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.’
So you can rubbish David Ray Griffin, and Barry Jennings, and any other notable that speaks against the government, and of course anyone who questions the ‘Official Narratives’, as tin-foil-hat wearing nutters, but you’re the ‘dog’s b*ll*cks’ because you haven’t a bad word or query against the ‘Official Narrative’.
That makes you an ‘American Government, Right or Wrong’ supporter, in my book – in other words – well, whatever.
@ Daniel September 13, 2017 at 16:37
And I should have added, the general gist is NOT that it was blowback – that just shows how little you know about 9/11. It was said to be ‘because they hate our freedoms, our way of life’ or some BS like that, spouted by Bush, Bliar and countless others.
‘Blowback’ would have been a much more logical reason IF the Muslims had done it (which they didn’t), but to admit that would somewhat inhibit the ‘wars’ and attacks they had in the pipeline (talking of pipelines brings us back to the main reason Afghanistan was attacked, though opium played a big part as well).
The official spokesman for the FBI, when asked why OBL was not on their ‘Most Wanted Men’ list for 9/11, he replied ‘because we don’t have hard evidence’; yet Bush demanded the Afghan Government hand OBL and others over, without discussion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html
‘…By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban.
Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Quaeda who hide in your land.
(APPLAUSE)
Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities. (APPLAUSE)
Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.
(APPLAUSE)
The Taliban must act and act immediately.
They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate…..’
The Taliban replied they would hand over OBL IF the US provided proof he had anything to do with 9/11 (an impossible demand, of course, because they had no such proof).
So the US and it’s band of International War Criminals (the ‘so-called ‘Coalition’) attacked, causing countless deaths, destruction of what little infrastructure Afghanistan had, and massively ramped up the production of opium, which the Taliban had cut to almost zero (some 80 tons).
And of course, the ‘War on Terror’ with it’s Bagram, Abu Graib, Guantanomo and countless ‘Black Sites’ torture centers around the world, as well as ‘Extraordinary Rendition’.
THAT is the level of abidance to International Treaties and laws forbidding Wars Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity – the bully and his evil gang of cronies (including the UK) don’t give a fig for Law and Order, but just abide by the ‘Law of the Jungle’ and the Luciferian Aleister Crowley’s ‘”Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law….’
Why were there 15 unarmed CIA agents on the last three planes if it was not surprise blowback?
@ Trowbridge H. Ford September 13, 2017 at 21:16
I’m sure that if they were on those planes, they are alive and well (unless they have passed away since).
I believe the whole thing was the classic ‘Operation Northwoods’ scenario, of switching planes, landing the passenger planes and replacing with drones of some description.
All 4 passenger planes were reported lost from radar for a portion of the time, then radar contact was recovered. And the lost portion of the passenger aircraft was in all cases near a USAF base.
Of course, not all of the passengers would have been so lucky; some, like the air hostess who called her husband, and ended whispering ‘it’s a frame’, would have been terminated (and the call was not made from thousands of feet up (proven impossible at that time), and, like all the other so-called ‘phone calls’ there was no extraneous noise, aircraft or other (like screams, shouts etc).
If the 15 are alive and well, why does the government refuse to name the 15 unidentified passengers on the last three planes?
That passport could have been dropped near the crash at the Pentagon to throw people off, like it sending those anthax letters to make it appear that a foreign plot by terrorists was still ongoing.
And the names of those four suicide bombers were just put together by the Saudis to make them less culpable. Notice that the first names of two Afghamadi are Hamza and Ahmed on United Flight 175, not the one quoted in the article.
Will check the validity of the others if you persist in your BS.
@ Trowbridge H. Ford September 13, 2017 at 21:53
‘..If the 15 are alive and well, why does the government refuse to name the 15 unidentified passengers on the last three planes?…’
Well, at a guess, if no one knew their names, the government would not have to say they died, so would not have to give them false identities and bundles of moolah but could carry on using them in their pre-9/11 work.
Do you still insist Hani Hanjour was the ‘most experienced (alleged) pilot’ (because the silly-b*llocks Government still do)? Their is actual video material on the net (or was) where a hirer out of aircraft explains what a tosser of a pilot Hani was – he was not competent to fly a Cessna.
Your average ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ believer makes the Queen of Hearts seem like a tyro – she could only believe six impossible things before breakfast, but OCT believers believe scores, if not hundreds.
And they call the Truthers the ‘Mad Hatters’!
And Hani Hanjour: ‘A Trainee Noted for Incompetence’:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html
What they didn’t tell you was Hani was a ‘Black Magician’, had a Jinn fly the plane for him, and shrunk the plane and it’s occupants and luggage to microscopic proportions before impact, thus explaining no Boeing debris (what debris there was was not from a Boeing).
The names of the apparent 13 agents were on the passenger manifest which the government refused to release.
Hanjour having a commercial license was released by the FAA. Had 250 hours flying time, and not in any Cessna, and two other suicide bombers followed his example.
Can I assume you have given up the absurd claim that the suicide pilots are still alive and well?
@ Trowbridge H. Ford September 13, 2017 at 22:29
I never made such a claim. Had there been a suicide bombing by a hijacked aircraft, it is perfectly obvious (even to me) that the hijackers would be dead.
I do not accept that the 9/11 planes were hijacked and flown into buildings and into the ground, and the list of 19 Muslims the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ who they claim committed the dastardly crimes is demonstrably a pile of pants, as 8 or 9 of the ‘alleged’ hijakers have been shown to be alive and well, and nothing to do with 9/11.
That’s a fact; check it out yourself.
And as I wrote in a previous comment, given the ‘alleged hijakers’ apparently stole other people’s identities, the USG and the MSM have never come up with the people they make out committed the crimes, and continue to use the completely innocent people’s names they came up with a few days after the event.
So how can they say WHAT country they came from, if they don’t know who they are?
Quite simple, really – I don’t know why you seem confused about my argument. What is there in it that seems to confuse you?
You are hopeless, as bad on 9/11 as you are on Hillary’s sexually abusing drugged underage females.
@ Trowbridge H. Ford September 13, 2017 at 22:29
‘….Hanjour having a commercial license was released by the FAA. Had 250 hours flying time, and not in any Cessna, and two other suicide bombers followed his example…..’
Can you give sources for that information? I know he had a pilot’s licence, as the guy who ran one of the aircraft training/hiring firms Hani dealt with confirmed this, but I have seen a debunker video which claims he had 600 flying hours.
And, of course, no details about WHO granted him the licence, or witnesses to his having actually done these hours. One would assume, in view of the controversy, the firm that confirmed his ‘competence’ and granted him his licence would have been interviewed and his evidence would be on record.
The source is the special edition of Time magazine. September 24, 2001, pp.40-1.
Daniel, please do not forget the question I posed on 13 Sep at 17.03
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.
Also, I gather from your post at 18.44 that there were no anomalies regarding the Pentagon attack. You say “The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building with blast-resistant windows. It was struck by an aluminum-skinned commercial aircraft that had already lost a wing before hitting the building….”
Can you please provide some evidence of this lost wing (like a photograph) or do you mean it was lost in a way that it was not seen again (just like the plane in Shanksville).
My final words on this topic.1/2
Some epistemological aspects of 9-11 conspiracy theories that are consistently evident on these pages include evidential cherry-picking and egregious ‘quote mining, disproportionate emphasis on anomaly and attention to maverick voices. Truthers consistently cite experts in disciplines only superficially connected. Loose Change is full of this, for example., although the same can be said for the numerous comments on this thread. Like holocaust deniers and climate change deniers, they not only pronounce on matters, like engineering and munitions, outside their fields but have a nasty habit of cross referencing one another in a cosy little circle. They use faulty logic, like presenting inductive possibility (inference) as deductive fact.
Apparently, to qualify as an opponent of the neocons, it’s not sufficient to acknowledge that the Bush administration exploited the attacks on the WTC for their own political ends, but rather, one must also believe that it could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading over a hundred witnesses that they saw a plane, wire every floor of the Twin Towers, detonate them in a perfectly timed sequence and make Flight 93 disappear into thin air while ensuring that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception.
Further, one must also believe that it’s reasonable that none of the 16,000 uniformed or civilian members of the FDNY, or anyone else who was involved in this huge conspiracy, would, after 16 years, have come forward about these issues, or that a set of incompetent governments who failed to pull off Watergate and who were incapable of faking weapons of mass destruction, are all-seeing and all-powerful. People believe the false arguments of the 9/11 truth movement because it proposes a closed world that’s comprehensible and controllable, as opposed to one that’s chaotic without destination or purpose.
Some epistemological aspects of 9-11 conspiracy theories that are consistently evident on these pages include evidential cherry-picking and egregious ‘quote mining, …
You’re a hypocrite, Daniel.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-117/#comment-696557
Not at all, Node. Are you a truther too?
Criticism
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
Are you a truther too?
You will never properly understand the arguments against the official 911 narrative until you stop assuming that all sceptics are part of some ‘Truther’ group think belief system. Let me put it this way: Both you and Clark believe that Saudi hijackers brought down WTCs 1 & 2. Is it therefore OK with you if I start calling the pair of you “Believers” and assume that you agree with Clark that WTC7 was brought down with explosives in an impromptu plan conceived of and executed on the day? I wouldn’t be so simplistic, and neither should you be.
The events of 911 are full of anomalies, nothing stands up to close examination, but the most glaringly improbable is the collapse of WTC7. More and more ‘Truthers’ are therefore adopting that as their touchstone for the day – if it can be established that WTC7’s collapse must have been pre-planned, the entire official narrative collapses with it! Every ‘Truther’ has their own theories about the details of the day – planes vs no planes vs missiles; nukes vs nanothermite vs secret energy weapons; insider dealing, indestructible passports, implausibly skillful rookie pilots; etc, etc. – but those can be sorted out by the historians if it can first be proved there was an insider conspiracy.
Many people believe the 2.5 seconds of freefall are sufficient proof that WTC7 was brought down rather than fell down. NIST doesn’t explain this, it instead states ….
“During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.”https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
…. but then refuses to publish the structural analysis model. However a group at Fairbanks University, Alaska have recently published the first results from their model which disproves the NIST theory and demonstrates why NIST’s model is unrealistic. When the Fairbanks work has been peer reviewed, Daniel, you are going to have to reassess your opinions, or be accused of cherry-picking the evidence.
And yes you were being hypocritical in your remarks above about cherry picking quotes and evidence because the quote you found in Wikispooks is actually from a very long article by Joël van der Reijden which otherwise contradicts every opinion on 911 you have expressed.
https://isgp-studies.com/911-evidence-for-explosives-and-thermite-at-WTC
I personally hope you haven’t written your last words on the subject here. This thread is improved by debate. I accept that your views are genuinely held and this is the ideal place to air them. However if you do stick around, I suggest you tone down the sarcasm and mockery as the tide is definitely turning in 911 affairs. What with university studies and recent sympathetic coverage in mainstream publications, you may have to soon eat your words – better that they are not bitter!
The link to the NIST quote above got scrambled. Here it is again:
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Nikko at 23.27
To be more accurate, the gist of the official narrative is that on the morning of September 11, 19 men, mostly from Saudi Arabia – under the auspices of Osama bin Laden – hijacked four planes out of Boston, New York City, and Washington, DC, and without giving away their intentions redirected the planes on kamikaze missions towards four American landmarks on the east coast — the Twin Towers of the WTC in New York, the Pentagon, and an unknown fourth location theorized by some to have been the White House or the Capitol building (the last plane was brought down through passenger interference, in an open field outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania). The attacks resulted in the complete collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers in New York City (now known as Ground Zero) and heavy damage to one side of the Pentagon, and the deaths of just under 3000 people, some 400 of whom were police, firefighters (with 3/4 of the responder casualties) and EMS workers in and around New York City alone.
I asked you what you thought the motive was for the US government to bring down what you absurdly claim was building 7 by controlled demolition.
All truther conspiracy theories in relation to 9/11 (which you will ignore) are debunked and rebutted here http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11 and here http://debunking911.com/
Final comments 2/2
Alexander Cockburn accurately described 9/11 truthers as amateur detectives::
“[They] proffer what they demurely call “disturbing questions”, though they disdain all answers but their own. They seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant. Like mad Inquisitors, they pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, torturing the data - as the old joke goes about economists — till the data confess. Their treatment of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence is whimsical. Apparent anomalies that seem to nourish their theories are brandished excitedly; testimony that undermines their theories–like witnesses of a large plane hitting the Pentagon — is contemptuously brushed aside.”
Of course, those in positions of power or influence who challenge conspiracy theories are invariably deemed by truthers to be part of the conspiracy. As David Robert Grimes, postdoctoral research associate at the University of Oxford, who has used maths to examine conspiracy theories, argues “..those making these charges will descend into accusing one of shilling or being an agent of some malignant entity.” Grimes calculates the greater number of people that are involved in a conspiracy means the shorter its lifespan is likely to be. In response to his work, conspiracy theorists have threatened him and tried to get him removed from his academic position.
Moreover Noam Chomsky has been accused by truthers as a ‘gatekeeper’ for his sound words of wisdom that can be viewed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SPm-HFYLo
and here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6Knc
Naturally, those who debunk the conspiracy theories such as http://www.debunking911.com are conveniently dismissed as also being “in on it”.
Those are my final words on this topic.
@ Daniel September 14, 2017 at 00:13
‘…..Those are my final words on this topic.’
Thank God for that, as you do not answer direct questions, no matter how often you are reminded, you just go rambling off at a tangent, telling us how stupid we all are.
You are just wasting our time here, and causing completely unnecessary friction, rather than debate.
More side-stepping….Tut tut.
@ Daniel September 14, 2017 at 15:17
So it wasn’t your last word on the subject? I thought it might be too good to be true.
But what’s the truth to a believer of the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ baloney?
Node,
Paul conveniently side-stepped the issues I raised in posts 23.59, 02.15 and 00.13. I would appreciate it, if you would would address them, or if not read them.Thank you. For the sake of brevity, let us for the moment stick with WTC 7. We realists believe in the notion that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the chances are it’s a duck. Unlike Paul, you come across as an intelligent and reasonable person who has produced a number of thoughtful posts on this topic.
Your blank spot, I believe, is your inability to acknowledge the elephant in the room. For the life of me, I cannot understand how you refuse to accept the most probable explanation that two planes travelling at high velocity laden with jet fuel smashing in to the WTC, was the most likely catalyst for WTC 7s collapse. I find the rejection of this – clearly the most likely explanation – to be absolutely extraordinary. From my position, I am willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that there is, say, a 1 per cent possibility that something other than this explanation was responsible for bringing the building down. But I’m afraid the onus is on the truth movement and others who reject the official narrative, to prove it. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
The claim that the building was brought down as a result of a controlled demolition, given the circumstances – using logical deduction, balance of probability and rational discernment – is about as extraordinary as it’s possible to get. Given the available evidence, on the balance of probability, the notion that it was controlled demolition that brought the building down, does not stack up. Anybody honest enough to look at the claims and counter claims in an objective and rational manner, could not arrive at any other conclusion.
To believe that a controlled demolition took place one would have to ignore the testimony of FDNY chief, Daniel Nigo, 16,000 uniformed or civilian members of the FDNY, or anyone else who was involved in this apparent huge conspiracy, who would, after 16 years, have come forward. You would have to believe that a set of incompetent governments who failed to pull off Watergate and who were incapable of faking weapons of mass destruction, are all-seeing and all-powerful. You would have to have a credible motive, all of which have been debunked.
You would have to believe the building fell at free fall speed into its own footprint, and discredit the fact that the damage to WTC 7 was actually caused by debris from WTC 1, 370 feet away. A controlled demolition would presumably try to avoid such behaviour. If one accepts that WTC 7 was burning for many hours, it’s illogical to also propose the controlled demolition thesis because the one precludes the other. You would have to ignore the fact that 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.
You would have to ignore the experts in the field who insisted that precision explosives, timers, and wiring don’t like that sort of treatment.Testimonies from firefighters inside and outside of the building in relation to the damage caused are consistent, and demolitions experts who saw WTC 7 collapse neither saw nor heard anything indicating an explosive demolition. You would have to ignore the fact that nothing can be seen or heard in videos that resembles explosive charges going off before the collapse or that 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.
You would have to believe the citations of experts in disciplines only superficially connected to structural engineering, ballistics and other specialist fields, like David Ray Griffin and Steven E Jones. Yes, many people believe that 2.5 seconds of free fall are sufficient proof that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled explosives, but many others also believe that the appearance of a face in the clouds is evidence of Jesus. The simple fact is no paper has passed the peer review process supporting the controlled demolition thesis, and given the circumstances described, is unlikely to. Until the time the Fairbanks work or others pass the peer review process and the relevant work published in reputable scientific journals, the truther bullshit is just that — bullshit.
You asked me to address the issues you raised the issues in posts 23.59, 02.15 and 00.13
23.59
I have already addressed your accusations of cherry-picking evidence and quote-mining, to which YOU have not responded. Much of the rest is smear tactics. I don’t believe you know you are doing it, you’ve picked it up from ‘mythbuster’ sites. For example you claim ‘conspiracy theorists’ are ” like holocaust deniers and climate change deniers”. Whether you are conscious of doing it or not, creating these associations stimulates emotional responses, not rational ones, encourages ad hominems rather than logic. If you want serious debate, drop this sort of labeling.
Then you question the plausibility of truther beliefs. You’ve done that again even more comprehensively here at 16.52, so I’ll address all these issues in a separate post.
02.15
You summarise the official narrative as though it’s beyond question, but actually every single “fact” you state has serious question marks hanging over it, except perhaps the official death toll. Rather than argue about everything you’ve said, how about YOU choose ANY ONE of these “facts” you have listed and let’s examine it closely, see if it stands up to scrutiny.
Then you want to know the motive for bringing down WTC7. I don’t know. I’d rather ask “is it possible it could have collapsed as it did without demolition techniques?”
Finally you say “All truther conspiracy theories in relation to 9/11 (which you will ignore) are debunked and rebutted here http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11 and here http://debunking911.com/
… to which I reply “All official narrative conspiracy theories [for they ARE by definition conspiracy theories] (which you will ignore) are debunked and rebutted here http://www.ae911truth.org/ and here http://911truth.org/
00.13
Your Alexander Cockburn quote can be summarised as “conspiracy theorists can’t tell truth from reality.” As soon as you try to actually define “conspiracy theorist”, it becomes obvious that what is really meant is “people who disagree with the official narrative can’t tell truth from reality” and “We can dismiss conspiracy theories without examining them because everybody knows they are bonkers.”
If you like this sort of argument, I can supply counter-quotes claiming defenders of the official narrative are blind to reality because they are brainwashed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In all three posts, you seem to assume that your facts, quotes and sources carry more weight than those of Truthers because they are ‘official.’ That goes to the heart of the matter. We Truthers are challenging the official narrative and the ‘evidence’ which supports it. If you want us to accept your evidence, you need to demonstrate why we should accept it. Repeatedly claiming that the onus is on Truthers to prove their extraordinary claims is an equally bogus assumption. From this side of the divide, it is your claims that seem extraordinary. BOTH sides have to justify their claims.
Ok, you evaded my reasoned points in my previous post based on the level of probability which is all we lay persons have in order to evaluate the likely cause. The official narrative is the most likely as all alternative narratives have been debunked and rebutted. The onus is on the conspiracy theorists to prove the highly unlikely possibility, given my thesis above, to prove that it wasn’t planes laden with jet fuel smashing into the WTC, but rather an uncontrolled “controlled” demolition that brought it down. Since you have not provided any papers that have passed the peer review process that prove the latter was indeed the case ( you won’t be able to since none exists), I’ll take that as a fail. Goodbye and good luck with any other fairy tales you may wish to waste peoples time with.
Aw come on! I addressed every point you asked even though they weren’t originally addressed to me. You made so many points about “the level of probability which is all we lay persons have in order to evaluate the likely cause” that I said “… I’ll address all these issues in a separate post, but without waiting for it your response is to ignore everything I said, accuse ME of evasion, then flounce off in the huff! Well I’m fucked if I’ll bother answering them now.
However I know you won’t be able to resist checking this thread, so consider this. You listed a dozen or so issues which you believe are so impossible to refute that truthers should accept them. I said there are question marks over all of them and suggested “YOU choose ANY ONE of these “facts” you have listed and let’s examine it closely, see if it stands up to scrutiny.” Yesterday (September 13, 2017 at 11:13), Jonathan Revusky made you the same offer : YOU tell US what you believe to be the strongest evidence supporting the official narrative. We’re letting you choose the battleground, Daniel, we’re not afraid of honest debate. Are you?
Thanks Node for the thoughtful replies to Daniel. Somehow I do not expect he will be picking up the challenge to debate
Thanks, Nikko. Yes, I spent a bit of time on it, I wanted to respect his opinions in the hope he would consider mine, but it turned out he wasn’t even engaged in a dialogue, he just wanted us to proof-read his latest blog post.
Daniel has proved a great disappointment. He isn’t interested in discussion. All of us have tried to engage with him, but it’s like trying to dance with an oil tanker. We barely interrupt his monologue. I’d still rather have him around than not, a thread like this needs representatives from both sides, I just wish he’d remove his head from his self-righteous arse long enough to listen once in a while.
But look on the bright side … he has great comic value! Have you read how he ‘deals with’ the 2.5 seconds of freefall? It’s truly worthy of Viz comic.
You can imagine him putting a checkmark next to “Bust freefall myth” on his ‘to do’ list. I don’t think he even understands why the period of freefall is significant.
I like the bit “Realists concede……”
That includes NIST then. I expect he must consider himself to be an idealist.
From ‘False Flag’ 9/11, to ‘False Flag’ Regime Change attempts in Syria (one of the 7 countries Wesley Clark was told in 2001 at the Pentagon was to be ‘Regime Changed’; here is a video that will have some of you scratching your heads, but it shouldn’t – it just shows the extent of MSM and government lies:
‘Syria Eye Witness: 21WIRE’s Patrick Henningsen and Vanessa Beeley On Location’:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/09/04/syria-eye-witness-21wires-patrick-henningsen-vanessa-beeley-location/
The video is not meant to imply all of Syria is like that – even there they are liable to suicide bombers and mortars, but far less now as the SAA and their allies push the headchopping Western mercenary proxy thugs into smaller and smaller pockets, or eliminate them.
Where were the Western MSM after Aleppo was liberated? Why weren’t they swarming all over the place to document the terrible atrocities they had been alleging were being carried out by the Assad government troops and their Russian allies? Suddenly, after the bloodshed had ceased, the MSM no longer wanted to know.
They KNEW they were lying before the liberation, and they sure as heck didn’t want to publicise it after the city was free.
The same ‘people’ who support the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ re 9/11 will also highly likely support the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ that Assad used Chemical Weapons on ‘his own people’.
Paul at 00.12, I’m not one of them. My article for Scisco Media:
https://sciscomedia.co.uk/sarin-gas-assad-fake-news/
I applaud this article, and some of the other stuff you write. It does not seem to be written by the same person who has tunnel-vision over 9/11. 🙂
Thanks John. Same thoughts with your blog. From the standpoint of building 7, surely you must concede that it’s illogical for a controlled demolition to be undertaken in uncontrolled circumstances.
It’s not illogical to imagine a controlled demolition taking place in ‘uncontrolled circumstances’ (whatever they are). For a start there was nothing uncontrolled about the area surrounding WTC – the cops had been in charge of the area all day and the firemen walking back from the building saying in the clip you refuse to explain that the Building is ‘about to blow up’ were walking in a completely controlled manner.
More importantly you deliberately obfuscate the issue in conflating two different usages of the term ‘controlled’. In a controlled demolition the word simply refers to the fact that the explosives are positioned in such a way to give some measure of control over how the building falls. Since they are positioned before the actual day it wouldn’t make any difference how chaotic the actual day was.
My latest article:
Why the 9/11 truth movement are akin to a religious cult:
https://cultureandpolitics.org/2017/09/14/believing-in-miracles/
“For the life of me, I cannot understand how rational people refuse to accept the most probable explanation that two planes travelling at high velocity laden with jet fuel smashing in to the WTC, was the most likely catalyst for WTC 7s collapse. I find the rejection of this course of events to be absolutely extraordinary.”
I see now! When the planes hit the twin towers, a gap in the space-time continuum opened up and jet fuel was transferred over to WTC 7!
George, still no evidence to back up your dumb theory. In the absence of such evidence, I’ll stick with the most probable cause. Or were the planes holograms?
At this point Daniel we are not talking about my “dumb” theory. Indeed I see no reason to advance any theory at all since the entire edifice of the official account has been based on reversal of the burden of proof. So we are only talking about one theory – the one that you have called the “most probable cause” which as far as I can make out relies on some mysterious “catalyst” initiated by the strike on the twin towers.
I know he had a pilot’s licence, as the guy who ran one of the aircraft training/hiring firms, 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.
@ Putlocker September 15, 2017 at 10:40
‘I know he had a pilot’s licence, as the guy who ran one of the aircraft training/hiring firms, ‘
seems to be from one of my comments, but then I’m perplexed as to what follows.
My comment was intended to show Hani Hanjour couldn’t even competently fly a Cessna.
I know no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon; only tin foil hat wearing ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’-believing moon-bats believe otherwise!
Putlocker, as they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Back to the drawing board for you. If you are going to introduce straw men at least make them slightly credible.
‘9/11 In A Nutshell – What Do You Think?’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs_quLjUHwM
Short and sweet 5-minute video clip.
On a side issue, I have (perhaps) heard a rumour that all mental health facilities in the Western World have begun preparing special ‘9/11 Wings’ where people can be cured of questioning Authority (voluntarily initially).
I cannot vouch for the validity, nor can I disclose my ‘sauces’ (other than they are not Heinz or Lea & Perrins).
A motormouth spouting BS for 5 mins. I’m convinced…LOL
At least the ramblings of a motormouth is more credible than claiming that what hundreds of people witnessed was a missile as opposed to a one winged aircraft. What other kinds of fake news do you believe in? Oh, and you are not funny. Stay with the day job – internet nerd come expert in nano-thermite, ballistics and structural engineering….LOL
… as opposed to a one winged aircraft.
You’ve mentioned this before. Nikko asked you for evidence to support the claim but despite your demands that everybody answer YOUR questions, you ignored his.
Here’s what you said :
“The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building with blast-resistant windows. It was struck by an aluminum-skinned commercial aircraft that had already lost a wing before hitting the building….”
[https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-117/#comment-696929]
This is complete and utter nonsense. If the wing fell off before the plane struck the Pentagon, where was it found? Photos or documentary evidence please.
BTW, it is customary to apologise if you’re caught posting incorrect information.
Ok, Node, hundreds of witnesses witnessed a missile and not a plane – silly me.
Don’t evade the point. You claimed the plane lost a wing before it hit the Pentagon. Nikko challenged this but instead of checking your facts, you repeated the falsehood. Now I’m challenging it and you’re offering sarcasm instead of an honest reply. Do you retract this claim?
‘BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES – 9/11 – “NO PLANES”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W3y3Qh8R1s
Just a reminder of the ‘nose out’ ‘phenomena’!!
“It’s total bollocks Ladies and Gentlemen.” It just HAS to be explosives because three totally different scenarios had….. (wait for it folks) three different outcomes and the time display unit on the building wasn’t displaying the correct time to the minute….LOL.
Are you saying that the “nose” coming through the structure is bollocks?
Nikko, No.
So if the cone is real, what was it? Could not have been the nose of a plane so a missile perhaps?
Daniel, I see you accusing Node of evading your questions, have you answered my question to you about the fireman outside WTC 7?
You remember the footage of them moving back from the building saying the building is ‘about to blow up’?
You haven’t, have you? Could it be because you can’t?
I mean, it’s obvious that the firemen mean what the words say: the building was blown up. What else could they mean?
You spend a lot of time on here insulting our intelligence and accusing us of falling prey to ‘cognitive dissonance’, but this is precisely why you are incapable of answering the simpl question I put to you.
Your eyes and ears tell you the building was blown up but the voice of Authority (in this case the US government) tells you it wasn’t.
Faced with the choice of disbelieving the voice of authority or disbelieving the evidence of your senses you choose the latter. And then have the gall to write articles insulting the intelligence of people who aren’t so daft.
King, Yes, your scenario is really akin to a controlled demolition….NOT.
King
Assistant Fire Commissioner: “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
But if you read on…
“I don’t know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.”
This is a quote taken out of context. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking it out of context…
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason — again, I don’t know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought — at that time I didn’t know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw. And I didn’t broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don’t know if I’m crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don’t know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt
Here is a fireman saying it could have been “electrical explosions”.
What a transformer explosion looks like…
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion
These buildings, as most office buildings in America had transformers and other high voltage electrical equipment.
http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
I ask you a simple question about some footage shot outside WTC 7 and you cut-and-paste a long screed from a debunker website about a fireman outside one of the Twins,’ Building 2′.
This is about the third or fourth time you have evaded the question by posting stuff that has no bearing on the question.
‘PBS Documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out Final Edition, 60min’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l-8PFk8j5I
Many of you will have watched this before, but for those who haven’t, and for a refresher to those who have, here she blows.
Trowbridge at 17.58, yep, couldn’t agree more, he needs help.
@ Trowbridge H. Ford September 15, 2017 at 17:58
Just a dusted-off version of ‘Operation Northwoods’, which was also planned as a ‘casus belli’.
Luckily JFK blocked the plan, via his McNamara (without his band).
I am at the moment sitting here cracking and eating hazelnuts I foraged for yesterday, so you can call me a ‘nutter’ if it makes you feel good.
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let’s review the evidence…
What we do have for sure.
1) Fireman saying there was “a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” “I would say it was probably about a third of it”.
2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, “that building doesn’t look straight.” He then says “It didn’t look right”.
3) They put a transit on it and afterward were “pretty sure she was going to collapse.”
4) They “saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13”.
5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can’t see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word “Pull” to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies “Pull” means “Controlled demolition”. He said it means “Pull” the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to “Pull”. (Whatever that means) “they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse”
12) Another fire fighter used “Pull” to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
What we don’t have…
1) Clear view of the large hole
2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact
3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side
4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said “Pull” and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word “Pull” to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
There is no doubt “Pull” means pull the firemen out.
http://debunking911.com/pull.htm
And then there is the testimony of the fire chief:
Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
1 – Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else – as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro
Daniel, what we also don’t have is remaining physical evidence which could have cleared the whole thing up easily.
As for Chief Daniel Nigro’s email:
“Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.”
No, the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 only showed that SPECIFICALLY TWO high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire DID collapse. Why they collapsed is still conjecture.
“Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.”
What, even the conspiracy theory that is the official account?
Yep, George, apparently Galloway, Monbiot and Chomsky are “in on it” too.
They don’t have to be “in on it”. They know what will happen to their reputations (and their jobs) if they don’t go along with the official account.
George at 09.48 You are having a larf. Chomsky and, particularly, Galloway, are establishment out-riders.
Very good interview, which I hadn’t seen before:
‘David Long, 9/11 Eyewitness’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQbEuBgAKso
“Get a job”….LOL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=127&v=FzF1KySHmUA
‘Another Scholar Under Fire for 9/11 Views’: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/29/woodward
‘The University of New Hampshire is refusing to fire a tenured professor whose views on 9/11 have led many politicians in the state to demand his dismissal.
William Woodward, a professor of psychology, is among those academics who believe that U.S. leaders have lied about what they know about 9/11, and were involved in a conspiracy that led to the massive deaths on that day, setting the stage for the war with Iraq. The Union Leader, a New Hampshire newspaper, reported on Woodward’s views on Sunday, and quoted him (accurately, he says) saying that he includes his views in some class sessions.
The newspaper then interviewed a who’s who of New Hampshire Republican politicians calling for the university to fire Woodward. U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg is quoted as saying that “there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech” and that “it is inappropriate for someone at a public university which is supported with taxpayer dollars to take positions that are generally an affront to the sensibility of most all Americans.”
State legislators chimed in, demanding Woodward’s dismissal and threatening to consider the issue when they next review the university’s budget. In some respects, the political reactions mirror those in Wisconsin, where lawmakers lined up to urge the University of Wisconsin at Madison to fire Kevin Barrett, who shared Woodward’s views and is an adjunct teaching in the fall semester. The university is letting Barrett’s course go ahead, although as a non-tenured adjunct, he has no assurance of work after this semester…..’
Kevin Barrett was not so lucky – he was not re-enlisted after term was up.
So it is not surprising, with politicians reacting this way towards professional people who find the ‘Offiicial Conspiracy Theory’ is completely unbelievable, that far more professionals (A&E’s, Firefighters, Academics, Military, Police etc. stay schtum about what they really think, and don’t want to risk their careers (or worse).
So it is not surprising that such a small proportion of professionals speak out – what is surprising is that 2,903 A&E’s have spoken out, and the number continues to grow, despite the risks.
An often forgotten (if known) fact is just how many ex-CIA, Intelligence and Military have actually spoken out – check out: ‘Patriots For 9/11 Truth’ http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Ask THEM where they stash their tin-foil-hats!
Paul at 22.07….Professor of psychology…Wow! I guess it’s one up from theology.
Some folk rabbit on about there being no ‘Peer Reviewed Papers’ by Truthers.
This is humbug; here for instance is one: ‘The Open Chemical Physics Journal’:
https://benthamopen.com/TOCPJ/VOLUME/2/
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2: 7-31
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen3
Electronic publication date 3/4/2009
[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007]
So far the paper has not been ‘Peer Challenged’, which means it stands in the scientific sense (not in the ‘Conspiracy Theory Sense’, but in the ‘Scientific Sense’.
But what does that matter, if one is a ‘Dedicated Follower of Government Narratives’?
Paul at 22.34
I said no papers have passed the peer reviewed process that prove the theory building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. There are none, zilch nada, zero
Steven E Jones and S9/11T credentials:
Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork.
So maybe the “scholars” have other “experts” from whom Dr. Jones (Indiana?) is relying on, so I decided to look over their list of “full members” described here as:
Currently, S9/11T has four categories of members: full members (FM), who have or have had academic appointments or the equivalent;
I compiled the list of members and categorized them by specialty, position and institution, which actually was rather difficult. Oddly enough many of the members don’t list their qualifications or university, which is quite strange, since every professor I have ever met is more than happy to go on for hours about their academic credentials.
I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.
Out of the 76 “experts” the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and “humanities” came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the “physicists”, Jeffrey Farrer, isn’t even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones’ janitor is also listed as an associate member?
So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn’t seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons!
The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.
So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!
So I thought, maybe I am being too narrow minded? Maybe these are just America’s best and brightest minds, even if they are working out of their fields of specialty. Noam Chomsky at least, regardless of what you think of his kooky politics, is a respected professor of linguistics at MIT. So I looked up this list of the top 20 universities in the world (17 located in the US) from the Economist, expecting to find the schools of our distinguished scholars to be well represented on it.
Wrong. A total of one professor, Kevin Barrett, a Professor of Folk Lore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was represented.
Total number of “scholars” from the Ivy League, zero. Total number of “scholars” from Tunxcis Community College, one.
James B. – Screw Loose Change Blog
http://debunking911.com/jones.htm
Another guy that doesn’t usually wear a tin foil hat:
‘9/11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=656&v=nQrpLp-X0ws
Just 11 minutes, so even if you’ve seen it before, it’s worth seeing again.
Paul at 00.19
The firefighter quotes the discredited S9/11T. He claims he heard ONE explosion which is not evidence of EXPLOSIVES, least of all a controlled demolition. At the point at which the comprehensively debunked Larry Silverstein “pull it” thesis was mentioned, that was enough. I’ve got better things to do then listen to more of that crap.
‘Former CIA Asset Exposes 911 Cover Up’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAawF22QUMs
This is an hour and a half, but incredibly important to see. The revelations are mind-boggling.
Paul at 01.05..I’m sure the “revelations” are absolutely riveting, Paul, but I’ll never be able to get my 90 minutes back.
On 9/11 we all have to make our own judgments. This is Rik Mayall shortly before facing his final judgment after making his last film One by One. There is some logic here in this clip which escapes otherwise intelligent people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW-oXuJTdjI
Sorry, it was his last British film. However Wikipedia does not mention it.
John, the far taller WTC 1 that was destroyed by the planes, part fell into WTC 7 400m away that set the latter on fire for 7 hours. Are we expected to believe that these were the circumstances in which WTC 7 was demolished under “controlled” conditions? Such a scenario defies all logic and reason.
John, @ 18.16..He says “a picture tells a thousand words”. Indeed it does. From our perspective standing on earth, the planet appears to be stable in which the sun revolves around it. However, science tells us the reverse is true. Video’s of building 7 collapsing purport to show it free falling for 7 seconds before it’s total collapse. The reality is that it took at least 18 seconds. In other words, he is wrong to say a picture tells a thousand words. Appearances can be deceiving. Taking this one step further, if appearance and essence coincided, there would be no need for science.
John, Yes, we make our own judgments based on logic, reasoning and the balance of probability. The conditions preceding the “controlled” demolition involved two planes at high velocity laden with jet fuel smashing into a much taller building 400 yards away. This obviously precludes the possibility of it being a controlled demolition on the smaller building 400 yards away. This smaller building was seriously damaged by the much taller building and was on fire for 7 hours Either planes smashed into the WTC OR it was a controlled demolition. Logically, it can’t be both. So which is it, John?
@ John Goss September 16, 2017 at 18:16
Giving voice to that sort of idea can speed up one’s ‘passing over’; there are lots of possible examples, but this fairly recent one is pretty clear-cut:
‘Joan Rivers’ daughter Melissa reveals Obama sent her handwritten condolence note….’:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2762611/Joan-Rivers-daughter-Melissa-reveals-President-Obama-sent-handwritten-condolence-note-late-comedienne-called-gay-lady-transgender.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ttJyzEfDIE
http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/what-killed-joan-rivers-feds-list-many-errors.html
With 9/11, you’ve got Barry Jennings, Beverly Eckert and Danny Jawenko as highly likely victims.
And ‘people’ argue why, if 9/11 was so patently an ‘Inside Job’, don’t more professionals come out in support of a new investigation with subpoena powers and non-government controlled investigators?
Because they may not only lose their jobs and get blacklisted, they may have unfortunate ‘accidents’, or ‘contract’ fatal diseases.
It is hard to say whether the death of Joan Rivers is suspicious. 81 year olds do die. Rik Mayall smoked heavily. But some are almost certainly state murders: David Kelly, Seth Rich, Michael Hastings and a long list of those who got on the wrong side of the Clintons.
@ John Goss September 18, 2017 at 17:15
‘It is hard to say whether the death of Joan Rivers is suspicious. 81 year olds do die…..’
Sure, 81 year olds do die; but not usually in the following circs:
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/joan-rivers-daughter-sues-medical-clinic-over-comedians-death-20150127
and only weeks after letting the cat out of the bag re ‘Michelle’.
She went in for a routine endoscopy, not for the procedure which a doctor who should not even have been in the room carried out without her consent; and the clinic was not licensed for the procedure which was illegally carried out.
The web is loaded with videos re the info Joan Rivers gave to the reporter.
It is extremely persuasive evidence!
@ John Goss September 18, 2017 at 17:15
‘Settlement Reached in Joan Rivers Malpractice Case’:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/nyregion/settlement-reached-in-joan-rivers-malpractice-case.html?mcubz=3
And it doesn’t even mention that Dr. Gwen Korovin, who did the unauthorised operation, shouldn’t have even been admitted to the room, and that the clinic was not licensed for the procedure he did on her.
A bit like Laurel and Hardy, or the Keystone Cops, but with a deadly (quite possibly intentional) result.
The Parsons Green ‘incident’ was so ridiculous, that in its own way, it was a debunking moment, similar to the Daily mail article on 9/11, because if you look at the picture of the bomb, it debunks the story, because it clearly isn’t a bomb that could have inflicted the damage claimed and the incredible response of a national deployment of armed police is comical if it wasn’t so serious. So it appears Parsons Green was staged to debunk ‘Parsons Green’!
At least a ‘False Flag’ hoax is better than a deadly ‘False Flag’.
John
Thanks for the Rik Mayall link, I had no idea.
Interestingly, I played Jenga last night. I removed a single brick from near the top and then got called away. An hour later the Jenga tower collapsed straight down through itself, in some sort of pancake collapse at near free-fall speed. What was even more spooky, I found out my neighbour had placed bets earlier in the day at Ladbrookes that my Jenga tower would collapse – how could he have known? Then as I swept up the dust that was all that remained of my tower, I found a tiny Muslim passport in it completely undamaged. We need an inquiry.
Hello. As the chief executive of Jenga Co., I appointed several of my friends to investigate this incident. It turns out there is a very simple explanation. Shortly before the collapse, a mosquito collided with one of the blocks and the resulting friction weakened all the blocks below. Once initiated, the final collapse was inevitable. The computer model used to demonstrate this is unavailable due to commercial confidentiality.
The investigation further concluded that although Ladbrokes did indeed pay out huge sums on wagers predicting the collapse, the gamblers had no conceivable connection with mosquitoes and were therefore irrelevant to the inquiry.
However because the tiny passport somehow survived the utter devastation which reduced every brick in the tower to dust, we were able to establish that the mosquito had been trained by a rival games manufacturing company which is now the subject of a hostile takeover bid.
Ha ha yeh, but how come BBC Radio Oxford reported the collapse of Jenga 7 half an hour before it happened?
Hello. I’m a senior news manager at Radio Oxford and your query has been passed to me. There has been a lot of speculation about this point so I’m delighted to have the opportunity to settle the matter once and for all.
1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on the day of the Jenga game. We didn’t get told in advance that Jenga towers were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in your living room on the day of the Jenga game, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our Jenga coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.
5. If we reported the Jenga Tower had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… ”
So now you know why Radio Oxford reported the collapse of Jenga Tower 7 half an hour before it happened. I trust this simple explanation will put your mind at rest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
Thanks guys for giving me a chuckle!
As a former toolmaker I love irony, be it railway lines, structural steel or smart-looking shirts.
@ John Goss September 18, 2017 at 01:30
That last remark was a bit near the mark! But true, all the same.
Node at 14.36, thanks for your peer reviewed evidence that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled explosives. What reputable scientific journal will it be published in?
No Daniel, you misunderstand. My analogy referred to the collapse of either of the Twin Towers. My analogy of the collapse of WTC7 is nearly identical, only without the mosquito.
Node, I eagerly await your peer reviewed paper, regardless. With your new found wealth resulting from it, perhaps you could consider contributing to Craig’s fund. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. You have zilch, nada, nothing.
You have zilch, nada, nothing.
I have the ability to debate, Daniel. I can address the other person’s remarks and make a relevant response. You can’t.
KoWN – one word – Classic,
When’s your next novel out?
Not for a while, John. The wheels came off my writing career a bit in the past few years because of depression and stuff.
Sorry to hear that. You have a gift for raising a smile. Depression is a terrible illness and so many of us, at some time in our lives, suffer from it. I hope when things are back on track for you that you return with a new vigour. 🙂
Thanks!
Hear hear!
KOWN
I thought of you, late a few nights ago whilst lying in bed. Half asleep someone on the world service (or r4) said “Welsh Noir”. I missed what they were saying exactly unfortunately. I listened to the radio play of your writing last year. Loved it.
Anyway, I have a question you might answer or not. I’m not alone in wondering. Were you the legendary and long lost comment writer Sofia?
Hi Phil the ex-frog
Thanks very much for those kind words. I’m thrilled you enjoyed the radio, it reminds me, I must put it up on my website.
The term ‘Welsh Noir’ seems to get bandied around quite a lot these days but the people who bandy it seem to think it all started with the TV programme ‘Hinterland’ and never give me a mention. Even though having the detective hero live in a crappy caravan in Ynyslas is a blatant steal!
And no, I am not Sofia, in fact I’ve never come across her, she must have been posting before my time. Even though I must have been active on this blog for a good five years or more. In that time there have been quite a few good ones fall by the wayside, don’t you think?
Anyway, thanks again and all the best to you.
Your mention of Ynslas here and in your novels has happy memories for me. There is a golf course at Borth and Ynslas where I had my bext round of golf (81 gross) which by my standards is good.
You were ripped off? Infuriating.
Sofia was a young girl cum space cadet cum shaman philosopher from a strange land. She had a crush on Baal but didn’t take to Habbakuk at all. Great, creative comments. John, you remember sofia don’t you?
Phil, nobody could forget Sofia. I can understand why you thought her alter ego was KoWN. Both talented storytellers.
One day perhaps all will be revealed.
Re Building 7, if you open this appended site and click on the Building 7 tab (it may already open on that page) there is a picture taken from above of the remains of the structure. It shows that the core of the building is hollowed out.
Dr Judy Wood has shown film of the “smoke” coming off the fires in the building before the collapse suggesting that it is not smoke but dust. If you look closely at the hollowed out building, you can see that it has similar vertical, neatly edged cores cut through it like the other buildings had.
I believe that Dr Judy Wood is right about the use of a secret directed energy weapon. I, myself, also believe that cutting charges and explosives were used, maybe even mini-nukes on the Twin Towers demolition. Once the sections were in the air the “dustification” seemed to be instantaneous, this we can see happening in all the films. In some films we can see one explosion blow the top stories off one of the towers in one piece, it then disappears down into the dust.
https://sites.google.com/a/ualr.edu/operation-rabbit-hole-where-did-the-towers-go/building-7
Daniel, you keep making reference to debris from WTC 1 hitting WTC 7 as a contributing factor to WTC 7’s collapse. The distance between the buildings you say (Sep 14 @16.52) was 370 feet.
As you are so sure of knowing what happened, can you please explain one thing which bothers me.
I agree with the horizontal distance being 370 ft (112m). Assuming that the debris came from the 100s floor of WTC 1 where the plane impacted, the vertical distance between that point and the top of WTC 7 is 53 stories or 200 metres. Resolving the trajectory of the debris into horizontal and vertical components, I calculate the time for the vertical descent to be 6.5 seconds (assuming the drag coefficient to be 0.3), and consequently, the ejecting velocity as at least 17.6 m/s or 63 km/hr.
You also tell us that the WTC 1 fell through gravity only, but from school I remember that gravity only acts downwards. I would very much like to understand where the force which ejected the debris laterally at a velocity of at least 17.6 m/s came from.
If you chose to answer by linking to external references, please ensure that they have been properly peer reviewed and unchallenged. Thank you.
Nikko, Why do I need to inform an “expert” in structural engineering and nano-thermite like you?
Why the 9/11 truth movement are akin to a religious cult:
https://cultureandpolitics.org/2017/09/14/believing-in-miracles/
Daniel, just out of interest. If you had to suffer the same consequences, would you stand behind Shyam Sunder, who states that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire, a potential agent of treason facing the hangman noose, or behind Richard Gage, who at worst is potentially a conspiracy theorist. The choice is yours to hanged, or ridiculed?
I support credible voices like Dr Sunder who reported that the investigation into WTC7 was moving as fast as possible, stating “It’s a very complex problem. It requires a level of fidelity in the modelling and rigour in the analysis that has never been done before.” over anybody within the discredited AE4911T movement.
Why have NIST not released all their research to the public? What are they concealing when they state that it is due to public safety that they will not release it?
Read my question properly – it is not about nanothermite or structural engineering but about Newton’s equations of motion taught at school. If you did O’level physics you should know
if you agree with the horizontal and vertical distances between WTC1 and 7, then the minimum lateral ejection velocity follows from that.
This is not religion but basic school physics. I asked you to help me to understand where the lateral force came from to eject the debris. Or do you think that Newton got it all wrong?
Nikko at 22.24
I refer you to Philip Roddis:
– Faulty logic, like presenting inductive possibility (inference) as deductive fact.
– 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.
https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/05/incontrovertible-the-truth-about-911/
There is nothing in your link which even remotely touches the velocity of the ejecting debris from WTC 1.
After trying to engage with you on many occasions on topics which you yourself have put forward as “fact”, I conclude that you are a shit stirring hypocrite incapable of original thought on this subject and incapable of honest discussion.
‘HIGH RANKING CIA AGENT BLOWS WHISTLE ON THE DEEP STATE AND SHADOW GOVERNMENT’:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/high-ranking-cia-agent-blows-whistle-on-the-deep-state-and-shadow-government_092017
‘A CIA whistleblower, Kevin Shipp, has emerged from the wolves den to expose the deep state and the shadow government which he calls two entirely separate entities.
“The shadow government controls the deep state and manipulates our elected government behind the scenes,” Shipp warned in a recent talk at a Geoengineeringwatch.org conference.
Shipp had a series of slides explaining how the deep state and shadow government functions as well as the horrific crimes they are committing against U.S. citizens.
Some of the revelations the former CIA anti-terrorism counter intelligence officer revealed included that “Google Earth was set up through the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and InQtel.” Indeed he is correct, the CIA and NGA owned the company Google acquired, Keyhole Inc., paying an undisclosed sum for the company to turn its tech into what we now know as Google Earth. Another curious investor in Keyhole Inc. was none other than the venture capital firm In-Q-Tel run by the CIA according to a press release at the time.
Shipp also disclosed that the agency known as the Joint Special Ops Command (JSOC) is the “president’s secret army” which he can use for secret assassinations, overturning governments and things the American people don’t know about….’
The American Deep State, Deep Events, and Off-the-Books Financing アメリカの深層国家、深層事件、そして帳簿外資金調達
Peter Dale Scott:
http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/4104
‘..I have come to believe that most structural deep events (or SDEs) are interrelated, and that the study of any one of them helps understand others. Their interrelationship leads to two levels of history in America, and two levels of historical narrative: official or archival history, which ignores or marginalizes deep events, and a second level – called deep history by its practitioners or “conspiracy theory” by its critics – which incorporates them. As an example of an officially ignored or distorted deep event, I like to give the example of the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP) detention in 1993 of a major al Qaeda figure, Ali Mohamed. In 1993 Ali Mohamed was ordered released by the FBI, freeing him to fly to Kenya where (as the 9/11/ commission report notes) he began the planning of the 1998 US Embassy bombing. This rather significant event was given a good account in Canada’s leading newspaper, the Toronto Globe and Mail; but it has never been properly reported in any American mainstream newspaper….’
Nikko at 10.22. “There is nothing in your link which even remotely touches the velocity of the ejecting debris from WTC 1.”
OK, looks like I’m going to have to spell this out. I repeat, your statement is premised on faulty logic, like presenting inductive possibility (inference) as deductive fact that also perpetuates Occam’s Razor – quite a feat. You are inferring a set of events that didn’t happen based on a set of false assumptions and no knowledge of actual events or evidence..
Oh, and Nikko, please remind me what the motive for the “controlled” demolition in uncontrollable circumstances was will you?
Daniel, I am glad that you have spelled it out because it shows you are not able to argue with your own words. You are also unable to post replies in the correct place where they have a chance to be seen.
Using the words of Philip Roddis from the Off Guardian article, you accuse me of “…… your statement is premised on faulty logic, like presenting inductive possibility (inference) as deductive fact that also perpetuates Occam’s Razor – quite a feat. You are inferring a set of events that didn’t happen based on a set of false assumptions and no knowledge of actual events or evidence.”
My comment made no inference and presented no conclusions but was simply a call to help me understand. My simple calculation was based on information which you have presented yourself as fact, i.e. that debris ejected from WTC 1 hit WTC 7 and that the distance between them was 370 feet. My contribution to complete the description of the situation was to estimate the vertical distance between the two buildings and assume a drag coefficient of 0.3. I trust that you are not disputing my estimate for the vertical distance of 200m. As for the drag coefficient, it makes so little difference to the outcome of the calculation that it is irrelevant.
I calculated that the debris must have been ejected from WTC 1 at a velocity of at least 17.6m/s and asked you to explain how this could have happened when only the force of gravity was at play. Please explain my faulty logic.
Nikko, I have no idea whether your “calculations” are correct or not or how relevant they are. You, being the “expert” that you are will, of course, deny all of evidence of damage and accompanying commentary:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
Nothing is stopping you from checking my calculation – you have all what is needed. Although the calc is very simple I guess you lack the ability to do so. Interesting that someone so ignorant of basic science as you has such clear views on what happened.
You must be a complete ignoramus if you do not understand the relevance. I’ll try to explain. The presence of lateral forces is undeniable. Where did they come from if WTC1 suffered a gravity led collapse?
I am not denying the damage to WTC7 from falling debris from WTC1. To the contrary as it is indicative of the presence of lateral forces.
Once you explain where the lateral forces came from we will be nearer to accepting the official version.
Nikko, oh, and I’m still waiting for your explanation as to what the motive was for the “controlled” demolition of WTC7 in uncontrollable circumstances. That’s my fourth time of asking.
Sorry but can’t help as I am interested in facts and not in speculation.
Nikko,
“Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. THAT’S WHAT GAVE THEM DISTANCE..
So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above.”
http://debunking911.com/pull.htm
Something tells me, you are going to remain in denial.
I said before that you are unable to discuss in your own words – if you have to quote at least chose something which makes sense an is factually correct.
Sentence 1 is incomprehensible
Sentence 2 is factually incorrect
Sentence 3 does not refer sentences 1 and 2 and is a meaningless statement
Sentence 4 is factually incorrect. The perimeter walls were attached to the concrete floors and the action of the falling floors would have been to pull the perimeter inwards according to the NIST report. Besides, tall sections of the perimeter wall leaning over are not seen in any video so did not and could not have happened.
Sentence 5 is incorrect. The peeling wall would needed to have been over 112m tall to reach WTC7. There was also a building in between. Did not happen.
Having seen the evidence I deny that a 112m long section of WTC1 pivoting from the bottom hit WTC7. You, on the other hand, believe any shit if it comes from a debunking site.
‘Flight Attendant sheds new light on 9/11’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7md2QzNsAe4 I hr video
Forget this post – I have found that though she sounds very convincing, she is almost certainly a government ‘disinfo’ agent – yet a lot of her stuff does ring true:
‘Part 2 of Regarding “Sara” (Rebekah Roth/Monika Gainor)’:
https://archive.is/i09t8#selection-113.0-113.55
‘NATO’s Secret Armies. Operation GLADIO and the Strategy of Tension’:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-secret-armies-operation-gladio-and-the-strategy-of-tension/5500132
‘…So, this Italian judge gets access to the archives, and there – only there – he finds the documents which state very clearly that Operation Gladio was designed to fight two enemies. First, a Soviet invasion (that never happened); and Second, a domestic enemy. The second idea goes like this: first, you carry out a terrorist attack – (usually terrorist attacks shock everybody and make them fearful) – and then you blame it on your enemy. During the Cold War it would have been the communists; today it is the Muslims. Thus, your enemy is totally discredited, even if they didn’t do it, and that is called a false-flag Strategy of Tension. The judge, Felice Casson, came to realise that the Strategy of Tension was actually used to shock Italy into a very strong fear of communist terrorism. So, really, it was fabricated. Today, when we try to put the pieces together, NATO declines to comment, as do the CIA and MI6; it’s all a bit tricky. But what we know today is that these terrorist attacks were carried out, and many of them were false-flag strategies of tension. We were being lied to.
JC: So, in this case, you have an extreme right-winger, Vinciguerra, a member of Ordine Nuovo, carrying out a false-flag attack; that’s one strategy. But wasn’t there also another strategy of infiltrating left-wing groups and getting them to commit acts of terror?
DG: That’s true; that’s another idea. Simply infiltrate a left-wing group that you think is not sufficiently violent, and push it to do something violent, such as to kill somebody. Then you have created a so-called domestic emergency that you can exploit by saying: “We need more money for the military and NATO, and more power for the Secret Service to guarantee your freedom and liberty. We have proof that these communists are evil and dreadful.” In 2000, the Italian Senate (one branch of the Italian Parliament) investigated the spate of terrorist attacks in Italy, and published their conclusions in a report. Let me quote this one sentence. The Italian Parliament writes:
Those massacres, those bombs, those military actions had been organised or promoted or supported by men inside Italian State Institutions and, as has been discovered more recently, by men linked to the structures of the United States Intelligence…..’
‘But the US, NATO and the West would never’ do that sort of thing’, splutter the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ believers….’too many people would have known about it – someone would have exposed it’…
And remember, this spanned most of Europe, as well as Latin America and Turkey.
Gladio B spans even more countries, including the Middle East, Africa and the ‘-Stans’ of Central Asia.
‘Jeremy Corbyn has just made a big stand against Saudi Arabia, putting Theresa May to shame’:
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/09/17/jeremy-corbyn-stand-saudi-arabia-putting-theresa-may-shame/
‘Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has made a stand against Saudi Arabia and its role in the war in Yemen by banning it from the party conference.
The Arab League, a coalition of Arab countries, who was to sponsor an event at the conference, is now boycotting it.
But Corbyn’s stand is in sharp contrast to the approach of Theresa May’s government. Because the Conservative party has not only failed to criticise the country for potential war crimes; it has sold it weapons that may have been used in its military campaign.
RSVP
In a letter dated 13 September, the organisation formally known as the League of Arab States, cancelled its “Annual Reception and Buffet dinner”. It was to take place on 26 September in Brighton during the Labour Party conference:
The letter says the rejection of the applicants from Saudi Arabia and Sudan is the reason for doing so.
Not welcome
A Labour Party spokesperson said:
Following evidence of war crimes committed by Saudi Arabia in its bombing campaign in Yemen and other large scale human rights abuses, the NEC agreed that the embassy’s application to attend the Labour Party conference would not be accepted.
Corbyn has been critical of Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen. And he recently told the BBC:
We’re selling arms to Saudi Arabia… and at the same time we are sending aid in… we should not be doing both.
He also said it was important to ensure there was a “political process to bring about a ceasefire”.
Middle East Confidential claims Sudan has been barred over the international arrest warrant for its leader Omar Bashir…..’
There’s politicians and there’s politicians – give ’em ‘ell, JC!
Ordinary working people can get by on saveloy and chips, or fish and chips, or even a pizza and a pint – Arab League, you know where you can stick your canapes and champers!
The dating app for truthers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=121&v=_LRf1PalFbA
From the horses mouth Daniel!
https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status/907291968690155521
Maxter @ 15.03. Wow, a slip of the tongue by a discredited war criminal. I’m convinced….LOL.
Heres another for you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbo_DMJFMb0
Maxter, you can’t be serious.
PENTTBOM is the codename for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into the September 11 attacks of 2001, the largest criminal inquiry in the FBI’s history. Its name stands for ‘Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing Investigation’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM
@ mog September 19, 2017 at 20:43
‘…the largest criminal inquiry in the FBI’s history…’
Blimey, they haven’t got much to show for it! Inspector Clouseau of the Surete could have done a better job on his tod.
Just a few passports pulled from thin air and a dodgy consfession video.
That is one of the shortest wiki pages I have read, and it is about one of the biggest criminal investigations in history (allegedly).
Perhaps the name was off-putting.
Frances Shure