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).
Do any of the anti-‘Conspiracy Theorists’ believe the MSM present us with the truth?
If not, then ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ are obviously required to attack the BS we are fed by the MSM.
‘”A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers….” — Aldous Huxley – (1894-1963) Author – Source: forward to Brave New World, 1946 edition’ (quoted from Information Clearing House: http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1101581137416&ca=b7dd00eb-86fc-4f6d-8e11-230a553a5b04
– “Do any of the anti-‘Conspiracy Theorists’ believe the MSM present us with the truth? If not…”
And there it is again – Binary Thinking; “either this (which is demonstrably false) is true, or my favoured alternative must be true”.
As if we should fall for a contrived false dichotomy.
I think that there is a minority of very good journalists – remember that John Pilger, Seymour Hirsh, Robert Parry, Craig Murray etc. were and occasionally still are published in what you dismiss as the MSM. Therefore you should take their writings and invert them to find the Truth, should you not?
Look, you’ve sent me to sites that claim that the radar stations used for detecting rain, are actually used for controlling the weather. You ask me to believe the most nonsensical things. The main thing I’ve learnt from you is that it’s a waste of time following your links. But you refuse to raise your game, seduced by your own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority
I really like Huxley’s work, incidentally. Brave New World, obviously, but Island deserves for more attention than it gets. But you, Paul, should struggle through
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devils_of_Loudun
Polite question to Clark and Glenn_NL:
Why are you annoyed?
No, I mean, why are you really annoyed? You can roll your eyes and say, ‘Oh here they go again!’ but that doesn’t really explain it.
For people to respond in the way you do here suggests, I think, something deeper going on, like a value system being challenged.
There’s a conspiracy theory out there that says Pul McCartney is dead and they replaced him with a double back in 1966 or thereabouts. If we were discussing that and kept piping up every time Paul McCartney appeared in the news, saying, ‘You see! It’s a double!’ You wouldn’t bother to react in the way you do.
So what is it? I think you will really struggle to come up with a satisfactory answer.
I think I know the real answer, but I would be interested to hear what you think
🙂
See here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-119/#comment-701087
It’s precisely because you’re failing to challenge a belief system, in fact you’re providing cover for the US/UK/Israeli policy of manipulating “Islamic” extremists to do the West’s dirty work because committing Western troops would offend the voters.
What you are doing is in direct opposition to Craig’s work.
Clark, you seem to be saying you are vexed because people on this thread are behaving in a way that discredits Craig and his blog.
Really? To that I would say this: by automatically rounding on those who question the official narrative you are effectively defending it and outlawing those who challenge it. Craig’s personal story should require you to do the opposite because for a long time the official narrative about him was a pack of lies deliberately created to destroy him.
So how can what we are doing here be in any way out of keeping with the spirit of this blog?
And if it really is, then I invite you to draw it to Craig’s attention and ask him to shut the thread down.
We all know he won’t.
Shut the thread down??? It was ME that repeatedly reopened comments when they used to close automatically.
– “by automatically rounding on those who question the official narrative you are effectively defending it and outlawing those who challenge it”
Binary thinking. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and two wrong narratives are even worse than one, because the conspiracist narrative effectively becomes a second line of defence against the truth. It’s
TRUTH, Justice, Peace.
KoWN: It sounds like you’re much cleverer than us, and hence know our motives far better than we do. So why don’t you just tell us instead of playing games like this? I didn’t know I was particularly angry, for instance, but then you’d know better than me.
I didn’t say ‘angry’, I said annoyed. This is what you said earlier:
‘That’s the problem isn’t it? You lot claim “False Flag” so bloody often, everything from reports of a flat tyre to a bit of house-breaking to a full scale military incursion to hurricanes falls under this category.’
That sounds to me like you were annoyed. How about ‘bothered’? I really think it is a worthwhile question. You clearly think the poster is talking nonsense but you wouldn’t get annoyed by most pieces of nonsense. I mean, if he said the royal family were shapeshifting lizards I don’t believe it would bother you much. So what is it about this particular species of nonsense?
I think Clark’s explained it fairly well.
Could you explain why you’re happy to associate your name to such risible BS that’s promoted by fellow conspiracists, that it doesn’t even pass the laugh test? The likes of 30,000 guillotines being delivered in the US, millions of body-bags headed for FEMA concentration camps, all that sort of crap. How about the hologram planes, silent explosions, weather manipulation, and earthquakes being caused by huge space lasers?
I’ve not seen you take any of your fellow theorists to task over these claims. You’re happy to let them lie (take that however you want!), but jump on me and Clark for not enthusiastically buying into whatever theory you’re peddling here. Could you explain why not?
There’s a simple answer Glenn. The damn conspirology stuff is addictive because it makes people feel good, same as a drug.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never posted on any of the items you list – some I haven’t even heard of – so in what way can I be said to have associated my name with them?
KoWN, you never object to any of it, and you posted the following, which is an example of it and encourages more of it:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-119/#comment-700992
Glen : “I think Clark’s explained it fairly well.”
Although he embellished it with self-justifying red-herrings, he did actually reveal his true motivation, (and not for the first time);
” I have helped Craig in various ways including with this site for around a decade. You might understand that people like me tend to object when a bunch of actual conspiracy theorists try to commandeer parts of the site for the dissemination of utter bullshit”
In other words he feels that this Blog partly belongs to him because of the work he’s put into it, and he cannot tolerate others using it to express views that he doesn’t agree with; that’s frankly is the bottom line, and all the other “reasons” are just pretexts to hide this.
As to this bizarre irrationality that Glenn & Clark seem to share, namely that if you don’t express your disagreement at each & every pov expressed here, then you must be endorsing/supporting it, well it sort of reminds me of the accusation that Islamophobes make against ordinary Muslims, namely every time that there is a crime committed supposedly by other Muslims, than every Muslim must come out & condemn it, every single time, otherwise they are secretly supporting them; not only is this bonkers, but impossible, as Life is too short to express disagreement with everything you don’t agree with ! Most sane people, mostly both refrain from commenting on things that they don’t agree with, or are interested in, as they rather spend their limited time commenting on things that they do agree with or that does interest them; did this really need spelling out ?!
All these years at this site; it is disappointing that you seem to have learned so little about how propaganda works. I’ll hazard a guess that you don’t read medialens.org much; they chose to throw a load of conspiracy theorists off their message board, and I can see why.
Much of the propaganda, particularly that from the Isamophobic gutter press, works by lumping a third of the world’s population together under the label of “Muslims” and hoping that no one will notice. In a couple of billion people, do you really regard it as inconceivable that a very small minority will become violent extremists? Because every Jihadist atrocity is misattributed by conspiracy theorists as “false flag”, and I strongly suspect that you lot think you’re thereby contributing to the cause of world peace; “they blame the Muslims but it’s really our own government!”
And as you lot indulge your fantasies, Muslim-on-Muslim extremist violence kills a thousand times as many in Muslim countries as it does over here.
Iraq, Libya, Syria; what is it about these countries that makes them targets of the West? The answer is pan-Arabism, a secular form of government which developed from the example of the Soviet one-party system. And who are the West’s allies in the Middle East? The monarchies, of course. And the monarchies of course see pan-Arabism as a threat to their inherited power.
So where does Jihadist ideology come from? Well predominantly it comes from Salafist and Wahabbist roots, the state religions of the Gulf monarchies – “OUR” allies.
For goodness’ sake forget this nonsense conspiracy stuff and read the proper 9/11 whistle-blowers. Read Michael Springmann. Look up “Who is Richard Blee?”
No matter how many times the conspiracy theorists repeat it, I am NOT “an official story hugger”, NOT a “Believer”. The fucking towers just collapsed because they were shit; so what? The whole event happened because extremist Saudis in the US could do whatever the fuck they liked and the CIA kept the heat off them, didn’t tell the FBI. And they still can; when Trump tried to ban “Muslims” from the US, he made an exception for Saudis. THAT’s not the “official story”, is it? Same with 7/7 and the Covenant of Security.
You lot are HELPING the propaganda, not exposing it.
I’ll hazard a guess that you don’t read medialens.org much; they chose to throw a load of conspiracy theorists off their message board, and I can see why.
I’ll hazard a guess you don’t visit medialens message board much. They closed it 2 years ago.
Thanks for the correction; yes I remember now. They closed it entirely because of aggressive conspiracy theorists, and someone set up Lifeboat News as a replacement.
They closed it entirely because of aggressive conspiracy theorists ….
I believe you made that up. Prove me wrong.
Sorry, I probably couldn’t provide proof if I tried. But I do remember reading a big, very unpleasant argument, after which the board was closed. The two Davids don’t indulge in conspirology; they never publish a jot of it. They’re Buddhists; I seem to remember them calling for calm – pissing in the wind with conspiracy theorists, of course, who are very keen to label as enemy agents those who refuse to conform.
You let your prejudices overrule accuracy. You must have seen Macky’s correction on the next page : “BTW The editors at Medialens closed it down the MB because of constant arguments iro gender ID politics.”
I think you owe the thread an apology for misinforming it.
Macky may be right; I don’t remember what the argument was about.
It’s no use me asking if those arguing were conspiracy theorists because both you and Macky deny this form of irrationality. However, I have seen Lifeboat News or whatever they call themselves and it is overrun with conspiracy theorists and conspirology. It is a crying shame to see Mary, such a good factual investigator, being taken in by such bullshit.
Macky may be right; I don’t remember what the argument was about.
Well if you don’t remember, don’t claim it was caused by conspiracy theorists then. Bad boy.
[email protected] : “They closed it entirely because of aggressive conspiracy theorists”
Clark@ 18.54 ” don’t remember what the argument was about”
Not having the grace to admit that he did make it up as Node suspected, he attempts to diverts by erroneously claiming that ML was “overrun with conspiracy theorists”, yet he had already told us @18.21 that the editors “never publish a jot of it” ! ( 😀 ), and then ropes in Mary as a further deflection !
Ha ha. I would pursue the point, only I’m already having fun watching Clark tie himself in knots explaining why someone who believes that a powerful cabal ordered the explosive demolition of WTC7isn’t a conspiracy theorist. As near as I can understand, a conspiracy theorist is anyone who disagrees with him.
Clark: “…..deny this form of irrationality……”
The blanket refusal to even consider an option.
Conspiracy theory should be treated like any other type of theory i.e. it may be true or false. Or it may be partly true and partly false. But to rule it out from the start is …. irrational.
@Node, you could have even more fun by pointing out that his “seven hours seems long enough to perform a fast-and-dirty felling of WTC7”, doesn’t sit too well, (even when divided by two), with CM’s “it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling”, especially as he’s always referencing CM’s good sense on 911 ! 😀
Macky, I don’t remember what the argument was about, but I remember that the people engaged in it were the usual bunch of aggressive conspiracy theorists. Understand yet? What as opposed to who.
Node, I’ve already stated that there’s a strand of conspiracy theorist about me. However, I am not totally subsumed by binary thinking of the type you keep insisting upon, ie. I recognise that attribute of myself, make use of it and balance it against others. You seem determined not to recognise yours, and therefore it is impossible for you to integrate it into a balanced whole.
George, a conspiracy theory is what gets produced when conspirology is given free reign without balance; it’s a type of sensationalism. For instance, Twin Tower demolition theory neglects the implausibility of its being set up, the implausibility of it being successful (twice, with no rehearsal) amid the damage and fire in the buildings, the implausibility of finding enough people willing to do it and never speak out later, and the implausibility of nearly the entire scientific and engineering community apparently failing to mention it. It also neglects the glaringly obvious explanation of damage and fire. Those together are a huge set of arguments against Twin Tower demolition theory, yet a very recognisable bunch of people insist it’s a certainty – not a possibility, a certainty…
Look at the word “rationality”. Ratio – proportion. People who give disproportionate weight to highly marginal arguments can be described as irrational. Conspiracy theorists can be recognised because they cling to irrational arguments.
Clark: “Macky, I don’t remember what the argument was about, but I remember that the people engaged in it were the usual bunch of aggressive conspiracy theorists. Understand yet? What as opposed to who.”
Totally wrong, and I know as I used to read their MB daily, and you accordingly contradict yourself as you stated that editors “never publish a jot of it”, so how can anybody be a known conspiracy theorist ?!!
Macky, the Twin Tower demolition theorists’ argument is for some type of theatrical demolition, an explosive demolition of a type never seen before, set up to look convincingly like a damage-zone-downwards progressive collapse, which would have required extensive charges on every floor below the damaged zone, whereas WTC7’s collapse was bottom-upwards, requiring charges only at low levels.
WTC7’s collapse looks like a typical controlled demolition. The collapses of the Twin Towers do not, and would have been far more complex to arrange with explosives. Add in the lack of even one rehearsal, and any sane explosives expert would have told whoever made the proposal that it was impractical and almost guaranteed to fuck up. You need an utterly evil genius with infinite luck and a large, infinitely trustworthy yet utterly evil team. Implausible.
@Clark, yes best skip pass the fact that in your desire to rubbish people who don’t agree with your 911 pov, you deliberately gave the totally false impression that the Editors shut down their MB because of “aggressive conspiracy theorists”.
As to your proposition that a military demolition team were assembled & dispatched to bring down a burning WTC7 in a seven hour window, without being seen by anybody, not by any firefighters, not by any civilians, not by any reporters, not by the constant live-feed TV coverage of this area, well it seems like as unlikely as many other conspiracy theories as to why WTC7 came down !
Remind me again why you are not a conspiracy theorist but I am.
Is it because I believe three towers were deliberately demolished that day, and you believe only one was?
I’ve forgotten the qualifying number.
Binary thinking again.
I was a conspiracy theorist. It was me that hounded Larry from St Louis across four open threads until Craig deleted a whole tranche of comments. But I was never as committed as most; you don’t escape Jehovah’s Witlessism without retaining a healthy suspicion about your own vulnerability to being sucked in by a false consensus.
Then Angrysoba brought an actual engineer called TomK to this thread and he said something that made perfect sense: “lose the geometry, lose the building”. Now I share very little with TomK politically, but he did know physics. I wasn’t about to take his word but he did free me from the shackles of conforming for the sake of popularity, and I started to think about the structure and possible failure modes of framed tube buildings.
There’s still a conspiracy theorist side to me; it’s just healthy human suspicion, but now tempered with rather more self-scepticism.
As conspiracy theroism goes, you’re one of the least afflicted on this thread. But you still have the tribal sympathies, the need not to offend the others, the reluctance to call out bullshit no matter how obvious it may be. You always try to dismiss any facts or argument that could call into doubt “controlled demolition”; your complete denial that a team could be assembled and many charges placed in the course of seven hours is an example, and your denial of the uninterruptable power supply near one of the impact zones is another. I’m still waiting for the results of your experiment which could convince John Goss that steel isn’t invulnerable to aluminium, but you’re probably reluctant to contradict a fellow CT. I’m also still waiting for you to complete the physics argument you shut up about months ago, about successive floors being entrained into the collapse. You finished with something like “it’s obvious what’s going to happen” with the implication that collapse would be arrested, but you never presented the argument.
Er, yes, but remind me again why you are not a conspiracy theorist but I am.
Is it because I believe three towers were deliberately demolished that day, and you believe only one was?
How many demolitions doth a conspiracy theorist maketh?
I said. It isn’t a black-or-white distinction, and it’s more to do with how one argues than what one believes. For instance, facts could emerge that would convince me of the demolition of the Twin Towers, but when facts against demolition emerge, conspiracy theorists simply dismiss them, usually as “government disinformation”.
The very fact that you insist upon “this or that” definitions is a trait of conspirological argument. No shades of grey in the conspiracy theorist’s mindset. No uncertainty or unknowns.
I said
No you didn’t and you still haven’t.
Yesterday you claimed that you used the phrase “conspiracy theorist” as in common parlance. Well you believe that a group of people secretly conspired to demolish WTC7 therefore in common parlance you are a conspiracy theorist, no two ways about it.
I’m not going to waste time discussing it further here – you’re plainly going to avoid giving a straight answer. But if you continue to use the term as a blunt instrument to belittle Truther arguments, I will continue to ask the question that you can’t answer.
Grief, how many times? In common parlance, “conspiracy theorist” does NOT mean a person who postulates a conspiracy! I know it’s confusing, but it’s not that confusing! For instance, Jack Straw called Craig’s revelations a conspiracy theory, but what Craig said had to do with torture, not conspiracy.
The vast majority of Truther arguments are undiluted bullshit; they’re stupid conspiracy theories. Most truthers haven’t the slightest interest in 9/11; they just enjoy the circle-jerking, feeling superior to the sheeple and the approval of their peers. I bet no one here has read even NCSTAR1, let alone any of the official reports. They just dismiss them as lies, and make up silly fantasies as a hobby!
‘Blinkers, Visors & Hoods’: http://www.treehouseonline.co.uk/product_list/24
Guaranteed by HMG and the USG to assure compliance to the ‘Official Narrative’, no matter how absurd.
Special early winter offer: BOGOF for first 100,000 customers (subsidised by the MSM as they are losing so many readers and watchers who don’t want or can’t afford these fabulously effective blinkers).
Conspiracy Theorists, you need these! Even better deals on bulk orders.
No replies re multiple shooters, multiple broken-out windows, ground shooters, foreknowledge….(just goes to show how effective a good set of Hallal blinkers can be!).
If given the benefit of the doubt, saving the hosts reputation by promoting the official line about 9/11 seems a worthy bit of gatekeeping, except the host could do this himself by closing the thread, although I doubt that would restore him to grace. The fact is this is a very informative thread and the hosts reputation (and 9/11 truth) is enhanced by allowing it and those genuinely interested in the truth can sort out the grain from the chaff and the trolls.
Dave, you slunk away like conspiracy theorists do. How did you do in physics at school?
Stalking is against moderation rules!
“Mods, please leave the comment as its illustrative of what passes as thinking among official conspiracy theorists”!
And Dave, it seems rather ignorant to suggest that either myself or Craig promote “the official line about 9/11”. Is it the official line that the US was attacked by its own proxy forces? Or that the Twin Towers weren’t as strong as was made out? Maybe you don’t know what has been covered up. Maybe you’re operating on assumptions.
You should try talking to me instead of dismissing me as an enemy agent.
The towers didn’t collapse, they disintegrated into dust evenly all the way down in seconds and your explanation is the towers were built by cowboys! I don’t think I should be talking to you, but listening and taking notes and wishing you well!
Try informing yourself of the facts. There was more than just dust in the debris; there were chunks of concrete across a large range of sizes. The collapse proceeded very quickly, but that is what should have been expected of buildings of that design. They didn’t collapse evenly; some sections of the collapse front can be seen to proceed faster than others.
Still, I’m bored; I must have been through all this a hundred times. There are millions of engineers in the world. If explosives were required for what was witnessed, it would be impossible to cover up. Go to the engineering department of your local university and ask them. But for fuck’s sake stop misleading others until you’re in a position to make an informed judgement.
“it would be impossible to cover up”. Agreed, its been fully exposed, but the criminals are in charge, so difficult to get a prosecution.
I defer to your understanding of physics, I wasn’t much good at the subject myself, partially though lack of interest. However, I’ve never understood the argument that such things are ‘impossible to cover up’. Always strikes me that it’s all too easy for the military-media-industrial complex to cover up pretty much anything they want. There are only very few people involved – a cabal – in the decision making process, and the actual work would be done by solider-sappers, or mercenaries, all of whom know that they are dead the minute they open their mouths. Slap the big ‘national security’ digital-stamp on everything that is related and – bingo! Cover up complete. Journalist can’t cover national security matters today anyway, not that most of them bother trying.
Take one cover up. It’s pretty clear that OBL died long before the raid, and that the whole ‘execution’ was a massive sham. But the MSM duly reported it as fact, when anyone in Intel knows it’s bullshit. Note also, every anniversary of Kennedy’s murder, the MSM, without exception, back the completely silly ‘lone gunman’ theory, as does every powerful player. It’s utter baloney, but the cover-up has taken root. I hope Trump blasts that one out of the water, personally.
This doesn’t prove anything of course. Other than the fact that plotters can be remarkably efficient with their plotting.
Indeed, there are many examples of secret Government operations taking decades to be revealed, like MK-ULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods, etc
Hieroglyph, there has been a huge amount of cover-up around 9/11. Some has been exposed, some has been whistle-blown. I think it certain that a huge amount remains unknown.
But the collapses of the Twin Towers are altogether different. They were and remain the most significant structural failures in all history, and as such received minute scrutiny from the world’s scientific, engineering and building safety communities. They were also thoroughly recorded from almost every conceivable angle in videos and photographs, professional and amateur. If those towers had been demolished by pre-rigged explosives on every floor as Truthers claim, it would be obvious to every physics and engineering department in every university and polytechnic in every country of the world. That would be impossible to hide.
The exception proves the rule. WTC7’s collapse killed no one, was photographed and videoed relatively little, and yet a university department in Alaska is not convinced of the progressive collapse explanation and are proceeding with their own study. This is fully public; it has not been covered up. Various structural engineers have stated that in engineering terms, WTC7’s collapse is far more important than the collapses of the Twin Towers, because it is not well understood.
I think it is possible that aspects of collapse initiation of the Twin Towers remains covered up. The physical evidence was mostly disposed of very rapidly, so it is difficult to know. But the Truther claim that there is some mystery about the fast collapse which followed – this is pure bunkum, a distraction.
Hieroglyph, as to claims that 9/11 was a false-flag, Chomsky’s argument is highly relevant. Since the Quincy Agreement of 1945 the US has been using Saudi and Saudi-inspired extremists as proxy fighters against the Soviet-now-Russian sphere of influence. If 9/11 had been a false flag by the US or one of its allies, the LAST country they’d have attributed it to would have been Saudi Arabia. It would have been set up to look as though Iran, Syria or even Russia had done it. The nationality of the hijackers is a huge embarrassment to the neocons; claims of false flag just play into the neocons’ hands.
I for one, don’t buy this canard being offered by Clark.
This excuse of being concern that CM is being discredited by association is complete hogwash, and a convenient pretext , that even CM has indulged in when he wanted to curtail Free Speech on his “Free Speech Blog”; nobody of rational mind can claim that any Blog Host is endorsing any of the thousands, and often conflicting, povs posted on a political debating Blog ! Especially if it advertises itself as a “Free Speech Blog” ! Seeing as CM has provided a dedicated thread for 911, it’s not that he would have been unaware that countless weird & wild scenarios / speculations will be discussed.
Which is not to deny that people of an irrational mind don’t exist, afterall here is Glenn contending that anybody who doesn’t believe in the official 9/11 Narrative, must be endorsing all the thousands of other weird & wild theories out there ! 🙂
BTW The editors at Medialens closed it down the MB because of constant arguments iro gender ID politics.
Craig got heartily sick of the 9/11 rubbish, to which I contributed. Look in the original post just above:
– “Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted”
He’s far too tolerant at times.
Remember that Craig is a whistle-blower; he associates personally with various members of the whistle-blowers’ association set up by Sibel Edmonds after 9/11 – people that conspiracy theorists like you dismiss as “controlled opposition” because they have revealed information entirely incompatible with your preferred conspiracy theories.
If that’s an attempt to refute, rebut or even address what I have posted, you best try again.
What happened to all the records stored in WTC 7? Were they destroyed in the fires before the building was “pulled”?
Strangely all the papers in WTC’s 1 & 2 did not think turn into dust like most of the steel and concrete.
Conspiracy theorists repeat untrue things to support their theory. The steel did not turn to dust; there are hundreds of photographs of the structural members at the Fresh Kills landfill site and elsewhere.
Yes, but remember that there was little to be seen of buildings 1 & 2 immediately after the events.
Remember also that all the WTC buildings required demolition so some of your steel could have come from them.
You should only believe what is seen in pictures taken in the afternoon of 9/11.
It appeared to me that the towers were exploded first and then subjected to some unknown energy while they were airborne which turned them into dust. You can see one explosion lift the top 15-20 floors clean off one of the towers.
Dr Judy Wood describes what is happening very well, but she does not seem to accept that mini-nukes were used. I think that thermite, mini-nukes and a secret energy weapon were all employed.
– “there was little to be seen of buildings 1 & 2 immediately after the events”
I don’t believe this. I think you need to look at more raw footage and photographs; try some of the fire-fighters’ videos. The debris pile was deep and extensive, and consistent with progressive collapse, the perimeter steel laid out roughly in two overlapping + shapes, ie. sections of each face fell outward, making two overlapping crosses.
God knows what Judy Wood is up to but her “Billiard Ball Example” contradicts conservation of momentum and Newton’s law of action-reaction – which is very odd seeing as she was a physics professor. She propagates all sorts of other nonsense too, like the “spire (core remnant) turned to dust” red herring, when videos from other angles show that it just fell vertically.
– “You can see one explosion lift the top 15-20 floors clean off one of the towers”
I must have watched hundreds of videos, some repeatedly, but I have never seen this, and frankly I don’t believe it. Please link.
See at 3 minutes in, the top of the building has been dislodged by the explosion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxA2cZKDo7M
Thanks. I suddenly became very busy a couple of hours ago. I’ve downloaded your link and will view it later.
Rob, sorry; I’ve been busy defending myself against false accusations, and now I’m busy again. Hopefully later…
OK, I’ve watched it now. Watch carefully; the top of WTC2 starts to tip left before debris begins coming out at the left face of the building at the damaged zone. This is clearly visible at about 03:01. Therefore what you call an explosion is an effect of collapse, not a cause.
Note also that emitted dust hangs in the air, whereas heavier material all heads downwards. There are no heavier pieces thrown upward into arcs that later turn downward, as we would expect from an explosion.
Remember that the buildings’ volume contained 90% to 95% air. During collapse, that air had to be expelled. As it was expelled, it blasted dust outward along with it.
– “..the buildings’ volume contained 90% to 95% air.”
This is also the reason for the relatively small height of the debris pile. The floor of each storey was only four inches of concrete on thin corrugated steel supported by lightweight trusses. That’s 0.1 metre of concrete. There were 110 storeys. So if all the concrete floors had been into a pile (without the trusses), we’d expect it to be 0.1 x 110 = eleven metre high; about three storeys.
Of course, that’s an idealisation; rubble wouldn’t land perfectly stacked of course, and there would be other material in it, suggesting a debris pile higher than 11m. But the falling material at the collapse fronts hit the ground with enormous speed, energy and momentum, pulverising much concrete and ejecting it into the massive plumes of dust – watch the videos carefully, you’ll see that by far the greatest proportion of dust was produced as the collapses hit ground, not throughout the collapses as Judy Wood falsely claims. That huge impact would have crushed any compressible material among the hail of concrete and steel; the so-called “9/11 Meteorite” is an example. There were also extensive sub-levels, and material was pounded down into them.
The perimeter, made of steel without concrete, fell mostly outward into two enormous cross shapes.
I really don’t understand why Judy Wood claims the things she does; she’s highly qualified so she should know better. Many of her claims contradict the video evidence, and her “physics” blatantly contradicts physics.
After the clip of WTC2 collapse initiation follow seven still photographs, carefully chosen to look like explosions. But in every case, if you compare them with video of the same moment, you can see that what look like rapidly rising objects are in fact either sections toppling outwards trailing dust, or smoke that had already risen. They don’t let you look at the stills for long but I paused the video to get a better look.
Also shown is a short clip of the gout of fire ejected from the damage zone of WTC1 immediately after collapse begins.
That video is carefully edited to exaggerate the false impression of explosions. But all ejections follow collapse initiation, so they are effect rather than cause.
They even zoom and pan on every still, adding a contrived dynamism. What excuse can there be for that?
@ Rob Royston October 11, 2017 at 00:17
If you partake of certain mind-enhancing substances, and stare for hours at the pictures of the dust clouds, you will see myriads of tiny demons, with sledge-hammers, pulverising the concrete. But don’t tell ‘Dr.’ Wood, or she’ll section you!
Well, Craig. If you went to buy a 2nd hand car and in the ad it said that it had a new engine, gear box, brakes, clutch, etc, and when you got there it had a rattly old engine tarted up a bit with paint, do you think:
1.) the vendor has been dishonest about the engine, but I bet all the rest is ok!
or
2.) because he lied about the engine the rest is suspect.
The first I think? You really only need one decent porky to get the idea .
But in the case of 9/11 we have:
1.) 3 buildings falling down at virtually free fall speed (no steel framed building ever fell down due to fire and the Empire State building was hit by a bomber in the 40’s and they simply fixed it)
2.) A man who was refused to hire a Cessna (because he was incompetent) apparently flew 20ft above the deck at top speed into the Pentagon in a large passenger aircraft, a feat which professional pilots say is impossible
3.) One of the aircraft (Flight 93) was swallowed up by the ground and left virtually no trace
4.) One of the hijackers’ passports magically floats through an inferno of blazing jet fuel and floats down to street level unscathed
5.) Years later many of the first responders to the incident have either died or have serious cancer, surely not caused by a bit of concrete dust?
6.) The ground below the twin towers becomes molten rock and stays like it for a long time (caused by aviation fuel up near the top?)
Are we to believe that it was too big, too difficult to organise and keep secret and yet a man with a long beard in a cave organised it on his cellphone?
Nearly all the Truther clichés in one comment! Congratulations!
Craig ruled out only false flag and controlled demolition. As to the rest he said:
– “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.”
To take your points one at a time:
1) – Steel buildings had previously collapsed due to fire. You mean no steel high rise. But there has to be a first time for everything. The speed of collapse is consistent with the buildings’ extremely lightweight construction. The Empire State Building was about three times the density of the Twin Tower;, as many veteran fire-fighters pointed out, it is a much safer building than the Twin Towers were.
2) – We only have the official reports as to which hijackers were flying the aircraft and which were controlling the passengers and crew. I have speculated that a Saudi military pilot was the actual pilot of the Pentagon aircraft. Such pilots were welcomed into the US for military training as part of the 1945 Quincy Agreement. Whistle-blower Michael Springmann’s testimony may be relevant.
3) – Whistle-blower Susan Lindauer has something to say about this, but I haven’t explored her claims. There’s an early 9/11 “conspiracy theory” (scare quotes as it may be true) referring to the four aircraft and the USAF response; “stop one, let the others through”. This is a LIHOP “conspiracy theory”, but so far as I know it is not ruled out by the available evidence.
4) – And the person who handed it to the authorities remains unidentified, I have read – but please check.
5) – My medical knowledge is inadequate to draw inferences, but there was a LOT more than concrete in the dust – mercury, lead, all sorts of stuff. Check the dust analysis.
6) – Not so far as I know – probably an exaggeration.
Finally, don’t underestimate on the basis of stereotype. For instance, the bin Ladens are an extremely rich and powerful family, and very close to the Bush family. And if you want a safe location shielded from surveillance, it’d be very sensible to use a cave.
So as all can see, I too could be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist” – indeed, TomK called me just that. So how come so many of you want to banish me from your cosy little club? Could it be:
– I dare to challenge Truther clichés?
– I dare to call out conspirology?
– I dare to accuse Saudis?
– I fail to endorse Twin Tower demolition theory?
– I fail to place primary responsibility upon Israel?
– I don’t cry “false flag” and “inside job” with the required frequency?
Well I don’t care. No matter what you call me, I will continue to think for myself. In fact, I recommend it, and many of you hash up so much stale old stuff, I think you should get some practice.
“there has to be a first time for everything”
Thus anything at all can happen at any time!
Is that meant to be an argument? I suppose the first steps you took as a toddler had to be a false flag then!
No, no, no. That was “fake news”. Try to keep up!
In the course of the history of the universe quite a few toddlers have taken first steps. But if a tall steel building collapses in seconds for the first time ever then this merits an explanation beyond , “There has to be a first time for everything”.
Simply, the top ten / twenty storeys fell onto the rest, which were never built to take such abuse. The rate of collapse was consistent with the design.
The “collapsed too fast” argument is very silly. Seeing as the top falling onto the rest guarantees collapse, what’s the point of taking such a huge risk of exposure in rigging every floor with explosives, just to make it collapse in fifteen seconds rather than say twenty?
Why did you assume that an explanation was lacking? The collapses have been studied extensively.
KoWN, I’ll tell you some other reasons I get annoyed. Trivially, taking on half a dozen conspiracy theorists at once, some of whom repeatedly insinuate I’m some kind of agent or shill; well this is annoying.
But more importantly, a major part of investigation is elimination. You start with wide open possibilities, but as evidence and arguments are accumulated, the field of possibility can be narrowed, certain things can be ruled out.
But conspirology goes in the opposite direction entirely. Rumours and unverified assertions or outright falsities are proliferated. As they are passed around they become embellished and exaggerated like a game of Chinese Whispers. The conspirology echo-chamber repeats and amplifies them, bouncing them back from multiple sources making them seem like verified facts.
Of course speculation has its place, indeed it is essential, but it is also essential to ensure that speculation is always identified as such. Conspiracy theorists are hostile to this; they never challenge each other’s assertions and they dismiss and attempt to discredit or drive away anyone who does. In such an environment the narrative inevitably spreads, diverges, proliferating and incorporating more and more falsity, making it impossible ever to home in on the truth. Eventually you get the situation where nothing is true and everything is permitted; truth and falsity lose all meaning.
Well that may generate entertaining fiction, but even if the truth is in there somewhere you’re never going to know if you’ve found it.
Quantity over quality.
Ambiguous. You could be, for instance; agreeing with my comment of October 11, 2017 at 02:30; criticising the number of comments I post; or suggesting a general principle to be followed.
Generous rather than ambiguous.
I’d agree that generosity is a better principle to follow than ambiguity.
In my original post I said that as soon as troofers start to entertain doubts about Las Vega, certain posters round on them in condemnation.
‘Oh God here we go again! Everything’s a false flag to you lot!’ etc.
But those posters had not gone onto alternative media to see what people were saying. They simply defended without question the official narrative given to them by the mainstream media.
Effectively, they automatically defend the official narrative and outlaw those who question it.
How can that be right?
Its easy to believe but difficult to imagine. That is, its easy to believe in God and the official line, but once you imagine, you start asking questions about what’s involved and it all becomes problematic. Hence why the neo-con inquisition and tormented minds condemn enquiry as heresy, because the truth sets you free.
If your contention is that nobody _except_ you incredibly open-minded, inquisitive and not-at-all-gullible troofers have never been capable of changing their minds about anything (the goverment, God, etc.), you’re completely wrong. So nothing new there, then.
KOWN; “they automatically defend the official narrative and outlaw those who question it.”
Why ? Because it’s a very easy, simple and effective way for people of low self-esteem to feel superior, & so to feel good about themselves.
Yes, which is exactly the same as what drives conspiracy theorists. The most popular conspiracy theories are by definition those held by the largest group of people (commonly called “the sheeple”) and are propagated by the mainstream media.
Consensus for consensus’ sake; religion, ideologies, newspapers, folklore… Humans tend to clump into belief systems; facts are secondary at best.
That’s the human problem in a nutshell; a set of collective delusions, which conflict to varying degrees.
Seems to me that the ones that invest most emotion & get very aggressive, even resorting to underhand tactics, are those with the greatest need to point to others, (as to how stupid they are), so they can feel superior & so feel good about themselves.
BTW by your own definition, you not only believe & endorse the official narrative 911 CT as propagated by the MM, but you defend it with a most zealous & religious-like conviction that would put many popes, cardinals, priests, monks & nuns to shame ! 😀
I do not accept what you call the “official narrative”. I say that WTC7 may have been brought down deliberately. I say that the evidence from official sources does not rule out that the attacks were permitted from within the US system, and does not rule out that Bush, Cheney etc. may have facilitated that. Please do not misrepresent my position.
Clark: I do not accept what you call the “official narrative”…
Only the willfully ignorant would pretend that you do, by now. You’ve pointed out – as have I – innumerous times that not accepting the trufers’ theory – or theories, because there are many – does not automatically mean full endorsement of the Official Story.
It suits people of low integrity, like Macky, to pretend otherwise.
Clark; “I do not accept what you call the “official narrative”. ”
Is it not your contention that the Twin Towers came down because of being on fire, due to poor design/construction, ie the resulting fires causing a complete collapse ?
Is this not also the official narrative ?
Is it not your contention that all the buildings on the WTC site were destroyed and about three thousand people were killed?
Is this not also the official narrative ?
It’s taken you six hours to reply, and the best you can manage is this ridiculous piece of evasion sophistry? I’m done with you (once again), for your inability to engage in a rational discourse; as always you either chose to avoid addressing the direct issue at hand, and seek diversionary cover, as here, or avoid the issue altogether, as you did most recently about being caught giving a dishonest impression as to why the MediaLens MB was shut down, and also of course your inability to defend your hogwash about being concern that CM is being discredited by povs being posted here; for all your pretentions for being a logical-driven & earnest seeker of the truth, you are, as all fair-minded observers can see, a self-serving, probably self-deceiving, dishonest individual.
MODS, please leave the above paragraph of insults. They are illustrative.
Macky, I submit, and I deeply apologise. Please tell me which hours you expect me to be at the computer so I don’t offend you again.
But please answer the simple question; a yes or no will suffice. Do you support the official narrative that all the buildings on the WTC site were destroyed and about three thousand people were killed?
Node, what do you make of this? Did I say something wrong?
And in the very comment of mine that you are criticising, I accuse the Mainstream Media of propagating what amount to conspiracy theories. If you must argue please argue with the position I actually express.
How much time do you expect us to waste, KoWN, particularly when we have looked into this stuff in the past, found it to be complete and utter bullshit, but the likes of yourself (since we’re apparently generalising) aren’t interested in refutations. You’re willing to overlook the fact that sources are entirely unreliable, claims are unsubstantiated, and often entirely contradictory. This happens again and again.
It takes a lot of work – far more work than it did to lazily post a bunch of dodgy links in the first place – to track down sources and debunk some crap – like I did about the claims on vaccinations, right here for example, a couple of years back. Nobody’s interested. Instead, the same claims come up again and again as if afresh.
So perhaps you’ll excuse me for not enthusiastically running over to see wouldjabelieveit.com and corblimey.ru to spend hours chasing links, just to come back and one of your gullible counterparts dismisses it out of hand. Or (and this happens very often too), refer you to something else claiming the same thing.
People like you rarely answer actual _points_, It’s far more likely that you’ll respond with a 3-hour youtube video link, or 10 of them, which I’m supposed to watch, research and respond to. It’s an unrewarding use of my time.
Glenn; “How much time do you expect us to waste”
None; if it doesn’t interest you or you feel it’s not worth looking, ignore/forget it ! No need to burst a blood-vessel, or to start generalising & rubbishing all who don’t share your the certainty of your povs !
Real simple no ?
Macky, unlike you I am not certain of very much at all on such matters.
Does it amuse you to pretend that I’m about to “burst a blood-vessel” and so forth, or is this just another example of how badly wrong you are on a general basis?
See my reply to Clark @10.54.
No answer for me then? And god forbid that you personally should try to exhibit superiority as a tactic to undermine your debatee.
@ glenn_nl October 11, 2017 at 12:25
‘..willing to overlook the fact that sources are entirely unreliable, claims are unsubstantiated, and often entirely contradictory. This happens again and again….’
Assuming you’re talking about the MSM, I have to agree with you. OBL guilty (proof?); WMD (proof?); Assad using CW (proof?); Gulf of Tonkin attack (proof?); Diego Garcian’s ‘migrant labourers’ (proof?); Dr. David Kelly suicide (proof?); Princess Di drunken driver ‘accident’ (proof?), and so on ad infinitum….
Here we go again. Anyone who doesn’t agree with your BS – which happens to have included your assertions that Barak Obama is a woman, and Michelle Obama is a man if you’ll recall – has therefore to agree with every official statement ever.
Black and white. Binary world. Idiotic thinking.
@ glenn_nl October 11, 2017 at 17:46
I never asserted that Barak Obama is a woman; you can’t even get that straight.
Paul, you referred us to a link with precisely the claim I described. It got deleted, but not before I replied. Perhaps you don’t remember it.
Glenn, Paul indeed linked to assert that Michelle Obama is a man, but his assertion was that Barak Obama was either gay, transvestite or transsexual, not female. He’s pulling you up on the letter of your argument, not its spirit, but he prefers not to make that clear.
I could have sworn Paul’s reference said Obama was a woman… regardless. As you say, Paul doesn’t respond to the actual point – he rarely does.
I’d like to hear some conspiracy buffs admit that some of their previous assertions were actually wrong. It would certainly give them credibility. While they let them stand (or slither away from them like Paul has done here), it makes it abundantly apparent that they’ll believe absolutely any hogwash they chance upon, and of which the “Internets” are positively brimming.
It’s a bit like the Mormon’s religion – they just quietly drop items which are so laughably stupid, or racist, or demonstrably false, and prefer not to talk about them anymore. (Such as that having sex with a black person will make you instantly die, for example.)
@ glenn_nl October 11, 2017 at 12:25
Quite odd, really. You seem to be very concerned about not wasting your (indubitably) precious time, yet you seem happy to waste it on posting here to obviously ‘looney tune’ ‘tin-foil-hatters’, when you could be much more gainfully employed gazing at your navel…
I’ll spell it out again for the hard of thinking.
If you want to discuss something with me, fine. I’m not “discussing” with these interminable youtube videos which supposedly make the case that you’re incapable of making yourself.
@ KingofWelshNoir October 11, 2017 at 10:34
Yep, none of ’em bothered to comment when I presented them with quite damning evidence re windows broken out on TEN floors of the Mandalay Bay, a guy being shot by a thug on the ground, other hotels having their lobby’s shot up, and many reports of multiple shooters.
No, just ‘these drills go on all the time’, in response to the evidence a drill for a ‘live shooter incident’ was planned (and presumably carried out) at 12 am 30th September.
Yep, and the three precise Underground stations hit on 7/7 in London just ‘happened’ to be the three precise stations undergoing a ‘drill’ on the day of the attacks. Pure coincidence!
And the Panorama programme, almost exactly a year before, of a ‘possible’ attack on three (not two, not six, but THREE) tube trains, and a lorry (NOT a bus, so it is obviously a flawed crystal ball they’re using) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3715899.stm
is absolutely pure, unadulterated ‘coincidence’.
Such coincidences, already! I’m minded to buy a lottery ticket, and order my Bentley at the same time. And my au pair!
You didn’t bother providing some context for these drills.
OMG – there was a helicoptor in the air over Las Vegas at the time! There were reporters in the area! There was gambling taking place in the vicinity!
Crap like that has no significance unless you put it into context. You didn’t put it into context.
KoWN: “How can that be right?”
Extraorddinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just some freak making baseless assertions on a highly dubious site.
However, that’s about all it takes for all too many of you.
‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’
Are you sure?
I’m afraid that phrase, though it sounds rather good, doesn’t really mean anything.
It was originally coined by David Hume in his book on Miracles. He felt himself to be on safe ground in calling miracles ‘extraordinary’, but even he – one of the greatest minds that ever lived – struggled to define what would constitute extraordinary evidence.
What would it be? How would it differ from plain vanilla evidence?
And who decides whether a claim is ordinary or extraordinary?
The claim that Lazarus rose from the dead is extraordinary, but why is the claim that there may have been multiple shooters at Las Vegas? You might think that extraordinary, I don’t.
What you deem extraordinary is just something that violates the consensus of the group you belong to. But that could be because the group is unfamiliar with the subject. If I told my chiropodist about Operation Gladio, she would regard it as extraordinary.
Down here in the 9/11 Truth sub-basement it’s old hat.
There’s extraordinarily good evidence for Gladio; a set of court cases. No?
– ‘Oh God here we go again! Everything’s a false flag to you lot!’ etc.
– How can that be right?
I read your summary of the evidence and criticised it. I assumed that if there was strong, convincing evidence, you’d have summarised it. But it looked like the usual scatter of claims that so rarely pay off if you follow them.
There’s tons of stuff out there that’s just made up; I can’t check it all and there are other sources I trust more than you.
Seems pretty plausible to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adgyVRSePPc
You might want to check the guy’s credentials out a bit more before buying into his spiel.
His name is David-Wynn: Miller. The colon is there because he believes himself to have invented a new form of syntax that can be used in court to avoid prosecution. Those who have tried it, so it appears, have mostly been jailed, and one sent for a ‘psychiatric evaluation.’
He also claims to be the King of Hawaii.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wynn_Miller
Thanks KWN, I was aware of that info, but his explanation of how the towers were brought down from the core is probably not a bad explanation, discounting some of the other points that he mentions.
He’s a liar and talks absolute bullshit; utterly shameless. Iron isn’t a hydrocarbon, FFS. I’m at three and a half minutes and seen enough; everything he has said has to be deliberately wrong.
Maxter, to dispel any possible confusion, my criticism is of the lecturer in the video you linked, not of you. By 3 minutes 30 seconds all he’d convinced me of was his own dishonesty. Either that or the video is some kind of spoof.
Believe the MSM? Yeh, right.
https://www.corbettreport.com/5-people-you-wont-believe-worked-for-the-cia/?
‘….. 2 – Arthur Sulzberger
As publisher of The New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger Sr. was one of the most influential men in the news media from the early 1960s to the late 1990s. And he worked hand in hand with the CIA.
The connection was first uncovered by Ramparts Magazine in 1966, investigated by Congress in the mid-70s and documented in detail by Carl Bernstein in his landmark 1977 Rolling Stone article, “The CIA and the Media.” In the report, Bernstein identifies Sulzberger (along with Henry Luce of Time Inc., William Paley of CBS and numerous other mass media organizations) as working directly and knowingly with the CIA to help the agency achieve its propaganda objectives. There were ten CIA operatives working at the New York Times in the 50s and 60s alone.
The CIA’s drive to infiltrate the news media was codenamed “Operation Mockingbird” and included everything from Sulzberger’s New York Times and Paley’s CBS down to AP, Newsweek, Reuters and even the Louisville Courier-Journal. The program formally came to an end in February 1976 when then-Director George. H.W. Bush created a new agency policy promising that the CIA would never again contract with any accredited U.S. news service, newspaper, radio station, television network or journalist. Because we all know the CIA would never lie about something like that, right?….’
‘…The program formally came to an end in February 1976 when then-Director George. H.W. Bush created a new agency policy promising that the CIA would never again contract with any accredited U.S. news service, newspaper, radio station, television network or journalist….’, indeed? Not according to Udo Ulfkotte (RIP): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yamJ6zUcmI
– “Believe the MSM? Yeh, right”
Er, Rolling Stone is MSM, and you can’t get much more mainstream than Congress, can you?
Sometimes a mountain of evidence is intended to hide the truth, same as an extensive report. There are some crackpot theories out there, by accident or design, that mix fact and fiction, but the elementary evidence is the rapid disintegration of the towers into dust. That proves the official line wrong on the day it happened and you either support a genuine investigation or you support the cover-up, although I accept many people are indifferent to it all.
How’s your physics? Mine’s good, I’ve researched, read papers, listened to engineers, considered the maths, watched and carefully studied many videos and photographs, read testimonies, reasoned extensively and considered carefully; and I have no problem with the collapses of the Twin Towers.
My assessment of the physics is that the Twin Towers were destroyed primarily by their own gravitational potential energy, which was much greater than the energy of explosives in a typical controlled demolition. That’s not anyone else’s assessment; it’s mine.
The basic problem with your theory is that in controlled demolitions, only a little of the break-up, rubbleisation and pulverisation is performed by the explosives. Most of it is done by the building’s own weight; the explosives just set the potential gravitational energy free by disrupting the geometry of the building. So pointing to pulverisation is merely to point to the buildings’ own weight and height, not anything else.
So that leaves you with speed of collapse, but that’s consistent too.
It reminds me of delusional Blair saying, I only know what I believe!
Dave, you started by making an argument based on hard physical law, but now that I’ve argued physics you have switched to a rhetorical argument likening me to a war criminal. It’s a disguised ad-hominen attack, but I’ll use my influence with the MODS; Mods, please don’t delete it, for it is illustrative.
I could feel insulted again, but instead I ask you; have you argued before under the name of Exexpat? Because that username used exactly the same, utterly invalid rhetorical device against me.
Any conspiracy theorists here prepared to call this out? No I thought not…
I know more than merely what I believe. I know the physical reasons that I believe it, and I know why those same reasons are convincing to the vast majority of engineers and physical scientists.
Clark :”Any conspiracy theorists here prepared to call this out?”
I don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist, whatever you may think it means, but I for one will call out YOUR rhetorical tactic of always playing victim to even the most innocuous of remarks, by deliberately misinterpreting them & adding imagined meanings to describe them as yet another “disguised ad-hominen attack”, thereby flagging it up & forcing the Mods to act despite your feigned protestations.
Impossible to engage in a meaningful debate, but I suspect that is exactly your aim.
…so if either of us is behaving like Blair, it’s you.
Macky, you’re the one who tried to convince Mary to support the conspiracy theory that the police were shooting blanks at the supermarket siege, and that the violent extremist’s hands were bound when he was shot. You tried to convince Mary by attacking me, when I pointed out that the other camera angle exposed the first of those pernicious lies.
Now you make personal attacks again, typical of conspiracy theorists’ techniques when presented with verifiable truth.
You can misrepresent, exaggerate & lie all you want, as I’m not going to waste my time unpicking your accusations; again all this is part of your debating bag of dirty tricks.
Now, after that sidetrack, anyone care to return to the physical argument? In known demolitions using explosives, the gravitational potential energy of the buildings’ own weight and height greatly exceeds the energy of the explosives, and as such is responsible for far more of the break-up of the buildings’ materials.
Therefore the extent of destruction is not a valid argument for the use of explosives.
And Dave, did you previously comment as Exexpat?
Well the “conspiracy theorists” seem to be getting all a bit tarred with the same brush on here as if they are all the same type of person, unwilling to accept criticism, deviate from their own entrenched viewpoint, blind to reason, uncaring about proof, all a bunch of nutters by the sound of it. Undoubtedly there are some nutters out there but I would guess they are as diverse a bunch as most other groups of people and there has been some interesting research done by engineers, scientists, airline pilots etc. If you have the feeling that you are not being told the truth then you form theories to explain what has happened and try to work towards some kind of explanation. After all that’s what quantum physicists, astronomers and paleontologists do – they can’t get down inside the atom, go back in time to see what colour dinosaurs were, or travel to distant galaxies to see what’s going on.
To take one further example – the aerial view of the Pentagon post attack shows a hole drilled through 3 layers of the building. A neat round hole is the last exit hole. I am not an aircraft engineer but it has never been explained to me how a large passenger aircraft could penetrate through 3 layers of a building with air gaps. The FBI are not helping as they confiscated all the video footage bar 2 frames from a gas station. They could help by releasing some of it, do you not think? Until then, I am left trying to explain to myself how this could happen. I have seen footage of large aircraft crashing and although they are strong in some ways to cope with the stresses of flight they of course lightweight in construction of necessity and are not intended to penetrate concrete structures. So, until someone comes up with a good explanation I am thinking : “missile”. I think I am not the only person to come to that conclusion; however the FBI could release some of the footage and put all us poor nutters out of our misery?
Come on Anteater, you’re asking similar kinds of questions to the rest of us nutters. It won’t wash here.
In my opinion the ants did it, so you’re the solution. 😀
@ anteater October 11, 2017 at 22:09
This is probably the best explanation of the Pentagon (but it’s 3 hours long!):
‘9/11 Pentagon Attack – Behind the Smoke Curtain – Barbara Honegger’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk
I assume better accuracy and more detail cost more money; that’s how most things work.
But then again, what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul.
More ambiguity, but I’ve encountered your hostility to me before.
If you’re accusing me of having sold my soul, please be honest and spell it out clearly for all to see.
While we’re on the subject of building collapses (almost as if we we’re avoiding foreign policy)…
I’ve seen a few physical simulations and models relevant to the collapses of the Twin Towers, but I’ve never seen a detailed one, and I’ve never seen even a suggestion that one should be done that includes the widespread fire over multiple storeys.
The fires were said to be oxygen-starved so there was plenty of hot, highly combustible fuel available – by which I mean fuel in general, not just jet fuel. The collapses began by crushing the volumes near the burning zone – and like in an engine, the fuel and air were then rapidly compressed, and rapidly pushed down on or through the lower storeys – with all their air and available oxygen – by the material falling from above, which presumably also carried some air with it.
I wonder how the temperatures might have varied throughout the collapses due to this, and if simulations could address it. Is there a possibility that compression and sudden rapid mixing could have caused increased combustion and temperatures? Anyone ever seen a paper addressing this?
The collapse fronts must have proceeded downwards by smashing through the floors of successive storeys. Do you suppose the hot material from the burning zone ended up at the leading edge of the collapse front? Because if it did, it received a big charge of compressed air each time it breached another floor. You know what happens when you blow on smouldering stuff. And this all occurred within the lower, mostly complete, steel perimeter, guiding it down, keeping it constrained and inhibiting dispersal.
The aircraft wreckage was also in the burning zones, and aluminium burns and reacts more readily at higher temperatures. There was also sulphuric acid and lead, some presumably molten, enough to have had to reinforce the structure to support it.
Sorry. It occurs to me that a lot of you will have dislike those comments. But I think about physics, you see; it’s an interest I have. I like to both visualise and get a feel for physical processes, trying to develop both intellectual and intuitive appreciation to guide understanding. But these events were very big and very fast; so much happened in such a short time, it is very challenging to think about.
Clark, waffling nonesense with the odd scientific term thrown in is not physics. Your ideas are getting sillier by the day.
Yes, when he said the towers were destroyed by their own gravitation potential energy, you had to laugh.
Of course you laughed. It’s the privilege of fools to laugh at men of wisdom.
“to laugh at men of wisdom.”
Why thanks Glenn, I haven’t had such a good belly laugh in ages ! 😀
I’m very glad, Macky! To laugh is to very essence of life. We should all strive to make each other happy – it very arguably is a duty to be happy ourselves, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Happiness
It gets way too Jesus-y for my liking in places, but the central thrust of the book is excellent.
You might think about physics Clark but it is fantasy physics. Your physics could never happen in real life. As Jonathan Cole quoting Feynman emphasised: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it does not matter how smart you are, if it does not agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You have never presented an experiment to show how a rigid steel structure can fall very quickly through its points of greatest resistance. Neither has anyone else. Cole has done lots of experiments to show why it could not happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=307&v=SsnnBa2x3VA
The physics you understand, Clark, is metaphysics. As it says in the second video you must not fool yourself because you are the easiest to fool.
What’s the point John ? Even if you corner him down to face his own irrationality, he would rather cut off his nose to spite his face rather than admit he’s wrong; expect endless obfuscations, endless evading diversions, meaningless waffle, manipulative sophistry, plain dishonesty, etc
Yes, the picture of Dorian Gray comes to mind.
“What’s the point John ?”
I often wonder what the point is myself Macky. Perhaps Clark serves a purpose. I noticed during his absence that the comment level was down. Not so any more!
If you bite into the outer shell of a horse-chestnut it has a bitter taste. When you get to the fruit itself however it can make you vomit. But it must be there for a reason. 😀
Cole’s models prove my point. By making them so small he has deprived his structures of sufficient gravitational potential energy.
Here are buildings being destroyed by their own gravitational potential energy; Cole has apparently “proved” that this cannot happen, but here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
Before the familiar cries of “steel, steel, not concrete”, note from the videos of the collapses of the Twin Towers that the leading downward collapse wave proceeded through the predominantly concrete floor assemblies.
Now, if any of you have any technical objections to my “pyro-piston” concept, would you please post them? – I’m bored with the personal stuff, but physics fascinates me.
@John, Your reply is here;
https://squonk.tk/blog/2015/03/15/the-general-discussion-thread/comment-page-81/#comment-26993
It seems that despite my arguing against deletion of your comments, someone on the team has had enough of your attacking me as a person rather than engaging with the points I raise.
But then I did predict that you lot would dislike my pyro-piston idea:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-120/#comment-701664
…and prediction is the best test of a scientific theory; in this case my minor incursion into armchair psychology.
Now, back to my favourite science; physics. Any comments about my pyro-piston?
Ref Clark’s pyro-piston bollocks physics
The Twin Towers had some 50% of the wall area made of glass which would not withstand any significant pressure, particularly as the glass would be the first thing to give as the building was collapsing. And on the inside the tower core was open top to bottom so no chance there either for any piston like compression.
Gosh really? So what blew the dust cloud into such an enormous volume to fall over so much area? And what blows the dust cloud in vérinage demolitions?
I can really learn a lot from you!
A more pertinent question would be what pulverised the concrete in the first place, before the towers started to collapse proper. Well, I am here to find the answer to that question but we can be absolutelly sure that it was not any pyro piston waffle bollocks.
On what evidence do you assert that most concrete was pulverised early in the collapses?
That was clever Nikko; I’m so innocent I didn’t see what you did there until now. You asserted there could be no compression, but when I pointed to an effect of compression you declared that things to do with dust were more important.
It’s ironic; Macky and John Goss insist that it is me who is evasive and diversionary, yet time and again it is my opponents who change the subject or turn to personal criticism rather than pursuing arguments to a conclusion.
It must be my fault; that much is obvious.
Clark, concrete pulverising and ejecting sideways is a consequence of some destructive force. It is not proof that it was caused by your fanciful idea.
I said nothing about “most” concrete so stop making things up. You asked for a serious discussion but you are incapable of holding one!
From your observations of the videos, when was most dust ejected?
It is irrelevant to the discussion so stop changing the subject
It is relevant because we’d expect most dust to be produced as the falling material was forced to stop suddenly by hitting bottom; that’s when most energy would be dissipated and the most crushing would occur, explosives or not. Here are two videos of controlled demolitions, one with explosives, the other without. In both cases, the thickest, most copious dust is produced as the collapses hit bottom. The dust is blown out sideways near ground level, and some begins to rise a little later:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCrb6EReOpo
Much like the Twin Towers.
Nikko, you wrote (13:50 above): – “no chance there either for any piston like compression” – and (20:23 above): – “concrete pulverising and ejecting sideways is a consequence of some destructive force”.
So no compression of internal air, but huge ejection of dust. Are you claiming that there were moving particles of dust, passing through the relatively stationary external air? Surely, viscosity and turbulence of air would not permit that.
If you are going to quote me do it in full. I said that dust ejection is not proof of your fanciful idea. The rest is waffle.
Clark’s “theory” is not original; it called the ““dust puff” theory”, and AE911Truth have a page about it here;
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/355-faq-5-what-caused-the-ejections-of-dust-and-debris-in-the-twin-towers.html
If you say so, Nikko.
Macky, it isn’t “my theory” and of course it isn’t “original”. It’s obvious that in a collapse, internal air must be compressed and expelled.
If anyone presents you with a paper you run a mile! 🙂
That’s not true, Mr Goss. The one time you linked a paper, your comment which followed made it clear that you had grossly misunderstood it.
But seeing as you believe(d) in hologram aircraft without applying “wait a minute, doesn’t light travels in straight lines?” to your own “reasoning”, I find that unsurprising. And you never even thanked me for pointing it out!
See, John, that’s what we do in the technical community. As you quoted, each of us must not fool ourselves, so when we correct each other the reply should be “thanks for aiding my understanding”, not effectively “you’re an idiot” and then pretending it never happened.
I’ve linked several papers all of which you ignored. But carry on in your metaphysical dream-world. As to holograms. Dispute this:
https://archive.org/details/911Hologram
Certainly, but please first state your assertions which are based upon these video clips.
As to papers, link them again, each with your comments as to what you believe it establishes, and I shall address your assertions.
Just looked at that “hologram proof” video, and it seems astonishing to me – the underside of the plane actually lights up, it brightens moments before it hits the tower.
If you look at the bright sunshine reflecting off the right side of the tower, from our viewpoint, that would suggest the angle of incidence and reflect between sun and side of the building is more or less the same.
If you look at the underside plane (which has curves, it’s not 2-dimensional), it is in the same vicinity and is at more or less the same angle as the side of the building, as it approaches impact.
Lo and behold! It reflects light back from the sun to our position in the same way.
Conclusion? Why, it must be a hologram!
Seriously, of course, it’s just reflecting the sun back as it gets into the right position to do so.
Hi Glenn, it’s an interesting theory, the sun reflected on a tiny part of the nose. Not one to which I would want to subscribe however. But watch the video again Glenn please and see what happens to the nose of the holgram from a different angle where they replay it and slow it down.
There is no hole yet a portion of the ‘plane’ disappears into the building. There are no flying parts of aluminium or other debris from the ‘impact’. I don’t think the sun can take the blame for that. Do you?
John, are you seriously asserting that the video recorded the visual effects caused by a hologram?
John, your assertion raises a matter of simple optics. Please let me know when you’ll have time to discuss it so it doesn’t take for ever exchanging replies.
To me Clark it does not matter whether the image of the plane is a hologram (as the video calls it) or whether it is pixelated (if you’ll pardon the pun). It is fake. That is what is important. The fakery of those who want us to believe something is something it is not. Anything else is either diversionary or an attempt at point-scoring.
Were we told the truth? That’s what many on here are contesting. That is what the focus should be on.
I don’t know if that particular video clip is fake or genuine, and neither do you unless you take account of the points I make above, and others.
I expect it’s genuine, because it shows the same thing as a host of other videos, public and corporate, amateur and professional.
But you should know better than making claims about holograms without checking the science of holograms, because otherwise you discredit your own cause, giving the propagandists more traction when they dismiss genuine facts as “conspiracy theory”.
If you can’t do it, you could turn to me, but you don’t trust me because I dismiss “controlled demolition” of the Twin Towers. How dare I know some physics, eh?
What’s this ?! Is the BBC engaging in conspiracy theories ?!
Not the BBC !! Where’s Phil to comment, or more accurately to vent & rage ! 😀
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41599529
Opps I meant Glenn (apologies to Phil whoever he may be !)
/ Y-a-w-n /
Have you fired off your angry “You’re all tin-foil nutters” missive to the BBC yet ? 😀
A migraine inducing floor design hides the absence of spent shells, but why do you need so many guns when only one can be fired, unless put there by others to provide a dramatic picture, but which debunks the plot.
Paddock obviously knew more about automatic weapons than you do. They overheat if fired continuously, so he took spares to swap over to.
In addition, a gun may jam, taking time to sort out. In addition, picking up another fully loaded “freedom protector” is a lot quicker than reloading the one you’ve just emptied.
Did he carry them?
I’ve no idea, but don’t change the subject; does the number of guns “debunk the plot” because “only one can be fired”, or do you retract that they were only to “provide a dramatic picture”? Because I smell the generation of a zombie fact in your haste to move on, and zombie facts keep coming back to life even after they’ve been refuted.
So you don’t think the gravitational potential weight of the bags is a factor here?
Please debate equally; you’re leading in questions, lagging in answers Exexpat. Do multiple guns have utility beyond drama? And give me more details if you have them; is it reported that he set weapons on stands, for instance? What’s your estimate of the overall weight and and number of cases, and are the media reports consistent with that?
Personally, I’d have looked into taking them up in suitcases with castors, in the lifts, over successive trips, but others might have packed them so they didn’t rattle and asked the porter to take them to their room.
Please bear in mind that this is a story that I can’t avoid rather than one that I’m actively following.
Would there be CCTV footage of him, the porter or others transporting them to the room?
How the hell should I know?
But you must know whether you’re Exexpat. Are you?
Would you expect there to be?
Not necessarily. Most countries have far less CCTV than here in the UK. Hotel security may be done another way, perhaps by issuing key-cards and you can’t get past the lobby or use the lifts without one. No CCTV may be a selling point; I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to matter anyway.
I expect that you’re Exexpat, and did very badly at school physics.
A lot of apparent details provided here;
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/7-major-questions-from-the-las-vegas-shooting-that-need-to-be-addressed/
So you don’t think a Las Vegas casino would have CCTV, what not even in the lifts?
I told you; I don’t know.
Don’t you think you’re being a bit controlling?
You lot just don’t get it, do you? I’m a representative of your audience. You need to convince me; attempting to defeat me is entirely counter-productive.
Node? Any comment about this debacle?
KingofWelshNoir?
You’re not a representative of our audience. And trying to *convince* you is entirely counterproductive.
In what way do I differ from your audience?
One theory I came across re Vegas was that Paddock was set up by the FBI/CIA in a so-called sting, to sell these guns to ‘ISIS/Al CIA-dah’, then he was shot, and the perps shot into the crowd and fuel tanks.
Also, there were indisputable attacks on at least two other hotels, and a guy was shot from ground level, and was lucky to survive, yet there seems to b sweet FA in the MSM, and obviously that blows the whole ‘lone gunman sh*te out of the water.
And of course it is perfectly true that rapid fire heats up a gun, and a gun can jam. That is why all Marines, Seals and Special Forces, to say nothing about Commandos, carry at least five rifles and four revolvers at all times whilst in combat.
“Cole’s models prove my point. By making them so small he has deprived his structures of sufficient gravitational potential energy.”
What absolute bollocks! You really do not understand the basics of physics. It does not matter whether it is a cannon ball or ball bearing gravity has the same potential effect upon them. It was always understood that a feather and a ball would fall at the same rate in a vacuum. This is absolutely basic. Well when experiment proves that they fall at the same rate then we all know that the theory is true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJcZ-KoL9o
Scale models are made before the actual article. Why? You are hard work Clark. I can understand Macky’s frustration. And I can’t afford you any more time.
– “…absolute bollocks”
If that’s a technical term in physics, I am unfamiliar with it.
– “It [is] understood that a feather and a ball would fall at the same rate in a vacuum”
This is true, but also, the energy accumulated by a falling object is proportional to the distance through which it has fallen, no? So decrease the distance and you decrease the energy, no? Cole’s models reduce the distance by about 400:1, and that alone reduces the available energy by the same proportion, no?
Physics was not the main science taking place at 9/11. Did you see the video by the couple in the high level apartment across from the towers?
The dust cloud from the building was down below the level of their flat and they could be heard shouting to each other to close windows and the A/C. What happened though was that the dust cloud went down so far, levelled off and then started to rise into the sky.
Dr Judy Wood has suggested that what was happening was that the dust was breaking down into smaller and smaller particles.
Yes there was a huge outward ejection of air and dust from each of the collapses, peaking about the time each collapse hit bottom. That is to be expected; air in WTC2 and then WTC1 was compressed downwards during collapse, but it couldn’t go through the ground* so it turned outward instead. As it lost speed it started to rise and billow more; no mystery about that.
* The exception proves the rule. Where air could pass underground it did, and dust can be seen bursting out upwards in places. Some of these outbursts have been incorrectly called explosions.
– “the dust was breaking down into smaller and smaller particles”
Is this based on analysis of dust samples? I’d expect to find smaller particles on average the further from the site a given sample was collected from, because fine dust gets blown further than coarse dust. So that doesn’t indicating that the dust continued to break down. I’d have expected most concrete pulverisation to have happened when the collapse fronts hit bottom.
You should be wary of Wood’s stuff; she seems to just make it up.
But the dust never reached the ground. It came off the dustified structural pieces, floated down, levelled off and then ascended.
Judy Wood seems to be approaching this correctly, she looks at what has happened then looks for the reason why.
I think you should watch the collapse videos more closely. There is some dust produced during the collapse; quite a bit from the initial crush zone between the falling top section and the intact remainder, and quite a bit blasted out through the perimeter columns as the collapse front descends. But by far the biggest emission occurs as the collapses hit bottom, dwarfing what came before. It is very clear on video after video, and it is typical of straight-down collapses of tall buildings.
Judy Wood’s “physics” in her “Billiard Ball Example” contradicts Newton’s law of action-reaction (but don’t expect many Truthers to admit it). This alone conclusively proves her dishonesty because it’s very basic, yet she’s well qualified in physics.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html
But I did not see any collapse. I saw a massive explosion dislodge the top off the tower. Simultaneously, I saw that the tower had “lathered up” (to use a Judy Wood expression) down below, and this was accompanied by the explosive expulsion of building sections upwards and outwards turning into dust as they went through the air.
Do you have any seismic data that proves that the “collapse” hit bottom with sufficient impact to cause the concrete pulverization you expect happened?
Watch more closely. If you’re viewing on a smartphone, try a large monitor instead. Step through single frames and use a ruler on the screen if you have to, vertically along the left edge of the building, to detect the onset of tipping of the top section.
Onset of collapse is followed by ejections, not vice-versa, in video after video.
The rate of descent of the collapse front is visible in multiple videos, so there’s no need to go to specialist interpretations of seismic data. And yes, there’s ample energy for the pulverisation that occurred. Me and Nikko have been through some rough calculations (the numbers are so big it only needs to be rough), if only Nikko would interpret them honestly.
Or just watch some known controlled demolitions; the vast majority of dust is produced in the crushing phase, as the falling material hits bottom. It’s completely mundane, normal, usual, expected.
As the physicists’ saying goes, “gravity never hurt anyone; it’s when you stop…”.
Macky, you hopped over to Squonk’s place and posed a long nag about me 🙂 but it did make reference to something that might be on-topic 😀 you wrote:
– “…my verdict on Clark is solely based on his debating behaviour, which I find not only tellingly evasive for a self-acclaim Truth Seeker, but frankly dishonest”
Now Squonk is a friend of mine so I know he hates his blog being flooded with personal bile, so all that aside, what matters regarding 9/11 have I evaded and/or been dishonest about?
A big red flag about what went on at the towers demolition was the damage done to the Bankers Trust building by parts of, I think WTC 2, cutting a gash in the wall facing the towers.
It was repaired but the steel kept being destroyed in a manner similar to the wasting shown on the twin tower steel. After spending ten years attempting to save it, they give up and demolished it. Has anyone ever explained what was causing the problem?
I’ve never heard of this. (1) Is it from Judy Wood? Her claims generally contradict reality and are best ignored, in my experience. (2) If it’s not from Wood, please link to good sources – scientific, engineering or building reports. (3) The strangely eroded steel was from the wreckage of WTC7, not the Twin Towers.
THanks for the comment Rob Royston. I have done a search and come up with this video. There is certainly a piece of steel girder there that should not look as it does. I have an open mind on this. But the video is worth watching partly because, like Clark, I don’t think anybody on this thread has published anything about another building having to be destroyed because of 9/11. Having said that I suspect if we lived in New York we would know about it.
Still throwing up gases after twelve months. My God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu93pjC3pQQ
Interesting video. Matters arising:
* Rob Royston referred to the Bankers Trust, whereas John Goss’ video concerns the Deutsche Bank building.
* The Deutsche Bank building has a Wikipedia page with various links and references.
* The woman narrator apparently collected 9/11 dust samples.
* I suspect that the woman narrator has been influenced by Judy Wood.
* I have no ready explanation for the eroded girder.
* The narrator claims that there is no explanation for the fire in 2007, and that it had no flammable contents. However, another source says that the fire was started by a cigarette, and that the building had much internal plastic sheeting to control spread of contaminants including asbestos. A fire-fighters’ video shows remains of plastic sheeting after the fire.
The Bankers Trust building was, if I have this right, being leased/rented from Bovis by Deutsche Bank since about 1997.
The gash in the face of the building had a large piece of the outer shell of WTC 2 sticking out at the bottom. From what I saw happening in all the films, I’m assuming that this piece was being attacked by whatever energy was causing the dustification and this brought the destructive energy into the Bankers Trust building where it attacked and damaged materials, leaving a state of corrosion that could not be arrested.
The owners wanted the building written off from the start but the insurance company, who were probably not in the conspiracy loop and were thus not fully aware of what they were dealing with, maintained that it should be repaired. After some years had passed it became obvious that it had to be demolished.
The fire occurred during the removal of the building, which was being done one floor at a time. Two fire fighters lost their lives from smoke inhalation. It is said that a contractor had removed a section of the firewater riser and it took fire crews many hours to physically rig hoses up via the scaffolding to where the fire was.
‘Las Vegas Shooting Victim: “There Was 100% More Than One Shooter,” Gates To Concert Were Locked Shortly Before Attack’:
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooting-victim-100-one -shooter-gates-concert-locked-shortly-attack.html?
‘…Las Vegas mass shooting victim Rocky Palermo was shot in the pelvis during the horrific attack and is now speaking out about what he saw and believes happened, including the presence of multiple shooters as well as locked concert gates and police telling frantic civilians to go in the other direction.
Palermo, who has done various interviews since the attack, appeared on “The Blast” with a series of shocking comments that correlate with various other reports indicating that multiple shooters carried out the attack and that the FBI is actively covering this up.
“I definitely do believe that there was 100% more than one shooter, every other person that I’ve talked to that did unfortunately get hit as well, have all said the same things,” Palermo detailed.
The man then goes on to explain that after being shot he ran “about 200 yards” to hide behind a car, all the while hearing bullets fly past him at what he believes was ground level…..’
More than one shooter, all gates except one locked minutes before shooting started…yet on previous nights all gates were open, and people left via them.
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, but they’re zombie fish…
Noam Chomsky explains why – cult formation, and the psychology of conspiracy theories:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q00muqmkQW0
You can psychologize anyway you want e.g. those who believe the mainstream media have an infantile need for unthinking acceptance etc. In either case, the psychological reasons for believing something are irrelvant. Something could be believed for all the wrong reasons but may still be true.
Indeed, I try to be able to speculate whichever way I wish; I’ve been deliberately practising such freedom of mind since I escaped childhood indoctrination in the JWs. But I’m looking for a reason that conspiracy theorists always speculate in such predictable directions, and don’t even seem to notice their own obsession. It’s as plain as a pikestaff on this thread; all CT speculation aligns towards certain favoured theories. You just repeated a favourite one; “those who believe the mainstream media have an infantile need for unthinking acceptance”, the basis of CTs’ sense of superiority.
My example was merely meant to be just that. Psychologising is a very low and devious method and a sign of bankruptcy and in my experience it is always the defenders of the official account who resort to this underhanded approach. In fact the very appellation “conspiracy theory” has been constantly used as a term of abuse that is meant to signify mental illness or gullibility.
Also – up above you have cast yourself in the role of an “audience” i.e. you are automatically assuming that you are part of some “sensible” majority which is an attempt to bully everyone into submission. Furthermore you say we are trying to “defeat” you. I have scanned this page for occurrences of that word and you are the only one who has used it. Thus do you dramatize yourself and present a warped view of this discussion.
You can’t call Chomsky “a defender of the official account”; he uses official accounts to criticise governments.
As to the terms “conspiracy theorist” etc., there really does need to be a name for the sort of thing that goes on on this thread, and there has to be a psychological explanation for the sort of behaviour we see here. Why, for instance, do you refer to an “official account”? Craig’s story came out in the Financial Times; is that “official” or “alternative”? Conspiracy theorists will act like I hadn’t written that.
However, I agree that this group of terms are used to try to discredit inconvenient facts (I do wish you’d get this through your head, I’ve been over and over it). Jack Straw used it against Craig, as I’ve written before. So don’t go thinking you’re educating me; you’re just insulting me.
What to do about this state of affairs? I recommend a rigorous approach to evidence and reasoning. Deny the propagandists the silly theories that they exploit for cover.
Everyone is everyone else’s audience. Implying I’m a sheeple or accusing me of working to hide conspiracies are attempts to defeat me, not convince me, so there’s no point counting how many times the word gets used.
George, I apologise, because you say you were just posing an example. But in your second paragraph; “you are automatically assuming that you are part of some “sensible” majority which is an attempt to bully everyone into submission” – no. Those are your assumptions about me. Ask yourself why you made them.
It is perfectly obvious that I am treated as an outsider because I don’t accept demolition of the Twin Towers. I am dismissed and ridiculed as a “supporter of the official narrative”. Look what happened when I pointed out to Macky that she too supports parts of the “official narrative”:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-120/#comment-701622
And one that was deleted, and others where I go to socialise with friends:
https://squonk.tk/blog/2015/03/15/the-general-discussion-thread/comment-page-81/#comment-26993
https://squonk.tk/blog/2015/03/15/the-general-discussion-thread/comment-page-81/#comment-27003
Never a word is said. None of you ever have a word of criticism for each other’s theories or bad behaviour, but if Kempe were to arrive, half a dozen would be down on him like a ton of bricks. This has to stop.
“the sort of thing that goes on in this thread”?
“a psychological explanation for the sort of behaviour we see here.”?
What sort of thing? What sort of behaviour?
And I never mentioned Chomsky.
“The official account” is that 9/11 was caused by entirely external forces i.e. Al Qaeda. Do I have to explain this?
“Sheeple” is your word. And is anyone accusing you of trying to “hide” conspiracies? Is anyone trying to “defeat” you? I’m not even sure what this is supposed to mean.
And there it is again: “Conspiracy theorists will act like ….” Always this mantra: “Conspiracy theory” which is meant to trigger an automatic rejection. One thing we can all be certain of is that whatever happened on 9/11 it was the product of a conspiracy.
George, at some point I’ll have to compile a bullet-point list of what is called “conspiracy theorist’s” thinking. I’ll throw one together now, but a better list will require more care than I have time for at present.
* Assuming there is such a thing as “the official narrative”.
* Compiling “anomalous” details and claiming that they disprove “the official narrative”.
* Concocting highly improbable alternatives to “the official narrative”, such as Twin Tower demolition theory.
* Accusing all and any who apply critical thinking to the improbable alternatives of supporting “the official narrative”.
* Assuming that any “supporting the official narrative” must do so for one of two reasons:
… * they are “sheeple”, ie. they “have an infantile need for unthinking acceptance”,
… * they are covert agents tasked with “supporting the official narrative”.
Meta:
* Denying that there is a recognisable mode of thought as described above.
* Claiming that any who point out the mode of thought are “defenders of the official account who resort to this underhanded approach”.
* Pretending that the term “conspiracy theory” refers not to this mode of thought, but to a theory implying a conspiracy.
Note that I have employed your own words several times, though I also used quote marks for other purposes too.
I should add a couple more:
* Consistently and apparently reflexively attacking any fact or reasoning that might call into question any of the improbable alternatives.
Meta:
* Consistently and apparently reflexively attacking any person who questions another exhibiting the described mode of thought, despite the other’s favoured improbable facts contradict their own – ie. gang formation, group dynamic.
George, my above two comments should answer your first two questions of October 14, 22:22. To your other points:
– “I never mentioned Chomsky”
I linked to Chomsky on October 13, at 22:02 above, and you criticised.
– ‘“The official account” is that 9/11 was caused by entirely external forces i.e. Al Qaeda’
Really? I disagree. My disagreement is complex in comparison to that, but I would characterise your summary as a gross oversimplification – another feature of conspiracy theories, for which I’ll have to add another bullet point eventually.
There is no such thing as “The official account”; it is a conspiracy theorists’ fiction, a windmill to tilt at. There must be hundreds or thousands of official documents about 9/11, many of them classified. Those documents have been synthesized into several major reports, which contradict each other to varying degrees, and to varying extents also contradict the aforesaid documents from which they were supposedly compiled.
There’s the 9/11 Commission Report also known as the Keane Report; there’s the Congressional Report, PENTBOMB, and NIST NCSTAR1 to name just four of the high-level documents I can think of without looking things up.
Let’s just consider the first. Does it say “that 9/11 was caused by entirely external forces i.e. Al Qaeda”? No! It documents (incompletely, inaccurately and dishonestly) a series of “intelligence failures” that contributed to 9/11. But part of it, the famous redacted pages, attributes responsibility way beyond Al Qaeda to Saudi Arabian government officials. Conspiracy theorists may try to claim that those are still “external forces”, but this ignores that Saudi Arabia are one of the closest allies of the US, and that high-level Saudi diplomats were implicated, ie. people invited into the United States and close to the heart of the US government.
When conspiracy theorists criticise “the official account”, they have no idea what they are criticising. And they refuse to read it because, they say, “the official account is a load of lies”. That’s a great excuse for laziness, but conspirology is an exceedingly lazy pastime.
And he describes a US government memo, suggesting releasing information about the assassination of Kennedy in dribs and drabs to keep the speculation alive, as a distraction from real government crimes.
“Wake up!”
Will Trump release or block ?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/27/jfk-assassination-lawmakers-call-on-trump-to-release-all-classified-documents.html
Doubtful. If anything the US is getting even more secretive that it was when Kennedy was assassinated. With suspected CIA involvement it would not look good. Also if this was seen to be an assassination from within people, how dare they, might ask questions about other issues.
John, I was trying to talk with you about simple optics:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-120/#comment-701786
Surely you’re not scared of a little science and reasoning?
…it’s just that from time to time you accuse me of evading issues, but it’s you that seems to keep running away.
The trouble is Clark I often find your answers diversionary and implausible. And I feel that I have wasted hours already on your wild geese chases. Does the plane appear to disappear into the building without creating a hole and without any plane debris falling off. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
I don’t know; that’s not a plane, it’s just a video, now just a pattern of pixels on a screen.
But I can tell you this from basic science. The effect couldn’t be produced by a hologram unless the hologram plate was bigger than the apparent image of the aircraft, because light travels in straight lines.
In fact, the effect couldn’t be produced at all by videoing a hologram, because parts of the image of the aircraft are darker than the image of the building behind it, but there is no way that a virtual image from a hologram could block the light passing from the building to the camera lens.
If the video is genuine, some actual object must have passed or been between the building and the camera.
Holograms are physical objects the same as mirrors are; both produce virtual images. We see a virtual image when we look at a mirror, but there is no way that image can be seen beside the mirror, or behind you, or anywhere other than in the direction of the mirror.
Now, why not do some actual work? Find the finest resolution size of that video; likely less than one pixel because it’s a digital transcription of an analogue video, but it can’t exceed one pixel under any circumstances, so maybe easiest to use that. Then use geometry to work out the minimum area of object up at the height of the aircraft that would completely fill one minimum resolution unit, because anything smaller than half that area would be beneath the available resolution. What size object can go unrecorded? That would be a start.
Sorry, I used unclear language, confusing “resolution” (finer is better) with “size of pixel” (larger is less resolution). If you don’t get the gist, ask and I’ll explain more precisely.
‘Mandalay Bay staffers didn’t call cops after security guard was shot ‘:
http://nypost.com/2017/10/11/mandalay-bay-staffers-didnt-call-cops-aft er-security-guard-was-shot/
The link broke up yet again: here it is again:
‘Mandalay Bay staffers didn’t call cops after security guard was shot ‘:
http://nypost.com/2017/10/11/mandalay-bay-staffers-didnt-call-cops-after-security-guard-was-shot/
Linking to the New York Post, Paul? But that’s the dreaded MSM!!! So by your usual “logic” surely you need to invert the report to find the “Truth”…
No, scrub that; what it says is convenient, so this time the MSM must be telling the Truth!!!
Am I getting the hang of this?
So you don’t think a Las Vegas casino would have CCTV!
Well I’d expect a casino to have extensive CCTV, to record actions of card-sharps etc., but the hotel part of a building I’m not sure about; my experience is in the UK which has by far the highest number of cameras per head of population, I think I read somewhere.
Look, I told you what I know, but you’re pushing me to say something I don’t know. Why not just go on to the next part of your argument, which presumably relies upon some assumption about CCTV that you’re obviously trying to make me commit to? There’s a perfectly valid commonly used convention for doing this; you just state “assuming there was CCTV…” and go on to the next bit.
So you think extensive CCTV in the casino, but none in the Hotel?
How many more times? I don’t fucking know and I don’t fucking care!. Now get on with your argument FFS!
…or grow a sense of humour and come have some fun with Bertie and Sheila…
Wait a minute… more than one shooter? I thought there were NO shooters, NO deaths, and the whole thing was fake!
Glenn, it doesn’t matter; around here, so long as you deviate from “the official story”, you’re in, whereas if you accept any element of deemed to be part of it, you’re out. It doesn’t matter if the deviation you accept is entirely impossible, so long as it aligns with a meme already on the Internet, you’re in. But don’t dare make up your own; original thought confuses hell out of them!
The link broke up: here it is again:
‘Mandalay Bay staffers didn’t call cops after security guard was shot ‘:
http://nypost.com/2017/10/11/mandalay-bay-staffers-didnt-call-cops-aft er-security-guard-was-shot/
I propose a new Viz character –
Bertie Beavis, conspiracy theorist!
– “but you only believe that because you have an infantile need for unthinking acceptance…” – “Cognitive dissonance…” – “sheeple who believe the official narrative…” – “Wake Up!!!”
Oh, and – “but you would say that because you’re working for T.H.E.M…
How come I forgot that one?
He can have a sad and very repressed wife who reads the Daily Mail, Shiela Sheeple…
Oh, she’d have to be his girlfriend; they have different surnames…
But maybe she doesn’t have a National Insurance number, but does have a Facebook account. Maybe she’s a figment of Bertie’s imagination. They could have a kid who becomes a crisis actor, and gets shot to bits every week but somehow always comes back…
Of course they’d have a bunker in the cellar…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEOIL3x_QM
Yes that’s right folks, I was brought up completely surrounded by conspiracy theorists, but I tore myself out; I know what I’m talking about here…
So you don’t think criminal conspiracies exist?
…and of course Bertie is a binary thinker…
Shiela believes in criminal conspiracies, but only the ones reported in the Daily Mail…
Bertie and Sheila have terrible rows; their kid is traumatised which is why she’s such a good crisis actor. Her picture is in the Daily Mail day after day, but Sheila never believes it’s her and Bertie won’t look at “the official narrative”.
The author of this strip can also be a character in it. He should have a name based on Cass Sunstein…
… not forgetting that anyone who doesn’t enthusiastically share Bertie’s fantasical notions are rightly subjected to mockery and ridicule. Because he thinks that’s the way to convince them.
No it’s the daughter who doesn’t have a NI number, because Bertie insisted that she was brought up in the bunker to avoid propaganda, and Sheila was happy with that because a child would imply that Sheila had had sex at some time, and that’s only for celebrities. Having no NI number is why the daughter makes an ideal crisis actor.
Glenn, yes! That’s why Sheila is so repressed…
Bertie and Sheila are both secretly terrified of computers, and wouldn’t dare use any operating system but Microsoft Windows. They’re constantly paranoid that it might become infected, but they’ve never learnt enough even to tighten up their cookie policies, so Google constantly targets things they already believe at them.
B is for Bertie and S is for Sheila.
Together they make complete BS…
Correction; Sheila always has an iPhone and a Kindle which she replaces with the latest versions as soon as she can afford to, so sometimes her files get deleted by remote control. Bertie still runs Windows XP with updates switched off because he’s paranoid about government spyware in newer software. He was hit by the WannaCry ransomware but he never stored anything on his hard disk anyway, exclusively streaming YouTube stuff.
GCHQ watch both of them in their tea breaks, and record their doubly-secret S&M sex sessions, even though it offends the more prudish staff.
The prudish staff make compensation claims for being exposed to indecent material when they’re maintaining the archives, but it has to be heard in secret court where GCHQ isn’t permitted to see the evidence it’s collected against itself…
Forget Viz; this could be a TV comedy mini-series. “Predictive programming” I expect you’ll say.
Bertie still runs Windows XP with updates switched off because he’s paranoid about government spyware in newer software.
I deeply resent the implied association with Bertie. I run XP with updates switched off because it’s the last useable system Microsoft built and runs specialist software for which no Linux version is available. It is not connected to the internet because I don’t need it to be. Result: stable basis for instrumentation which doesn’t eat bandwidth and is as near as dammit secure.
I would use absolutely anything rather than Microsoft’s post-XP offerings…including an abacus or log tables.
We still need some more characters. We need a wannabe Jihadist who can’t make anything blow up, a real Jihadist who gets away with everything because MI6 and the CIA always cover it up for him, and a Zionist who… suggestions? I’m not so good with Zionists. And we need some US right-wing Christians with lots of guns.
Ba’al; Wine? WINE = Wine Is Not an Emulator; recursive acronym, like GNU, Gnu’s Not Unix. Wine is a compatibility layer that converts Windows system calls to *NIX system calls. It works pretty well so long as the Windows software doesn’t need direct access to the hardware, nor the publicly undocumented (and illegal) M$ API. Or there’s ReactOS, an open-source re-write of Windows.
But I have set up off-net systems similar to yours for others; people who want to run Cubase but don’t want anti-virus slowing their systems down.
… not to mention being convinced that a government spook is constantly on their case, putting typos in their posts, erasing the odd word or sentence here and there to render their statements meaningless, and occasionally altering their username to cause confusion.
Sometimes text dissapears even as they type it, because that government agent has complete access!
Bertie takes all this as proof of how important he is.
TY, Clark – long aware of WINE, but it was simpler (given a video capture program with its own card, a choice of two hungry real-time HID’s on USB and a terminal running simultaneously) to simply accept that these were written for ‘Doze – ok the terminal doesn’t have to be – and get a cheap OEM XP disc on Ebay and put it on the net exactly as long as it takes to register it . While Linux issues are more fixable than ‘Doze ones, I have spent far too long already hunting for solutions whose author recommends rewriting the kernel or modifying some code which he doesn’t think is crucial….but is.
Yes, if your specialist software needs to talk to hardware, and you don’t need the system connected to the ‘net, just using XP is the simplest way.
So that doesn’t put you in the Bertie category.
Highly relevant article;
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/13/the-legacy-of-reagans-civilian-psyops/
consortiumnews.com was started in 1995 by Robert Parry who broke the Iran-Contras scandal and won awards for it, I think, but then somehow found less and less work being offered by the corporate media.
So I expect it’s a very informative article based on good sources. But I also predict that it does not endorse controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
Can’t remember if I or anybody has posted this before, but since I also don’t remember any discussion about it, here it is (again ?);
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
Yes. Along with the university study of WTC7 in Alaska, it disproves the oft-repeated assertion that the collapses have been completely ignored by the physics and engineering communities. Subsequent issues of EPN also carry some letters in response, including one from the so-called “NIST whistle-blower”, who actually just repeats A&E9/11’s arguments rather than really whistle-blowing ie. he doesn’t provide any information about people, administration or policy within NIST, he presents no evidence of a cover-up.
It has been linked multiple times on this thread, as has the Off-Guardian article based upon it. It’s about the best collection of demolition theorists’ arguments. It contains a few canards nonetheless, but they were kept pretty minimal.
EPN’s editors distanced themselves from it from the start. Unfortunately they got Bazant to submit a reply; they’d have done better to get, say, some Iranian and/or Russian structural engineers.
If it helps, do you think a 64 old man can carry 200kg+ of armaments or do you think it physically difficult, requiring a castor trolley?
A real “gotcha” that, Dave. I can’t imagine any way a person could get into a room more than they could carry on a single trip.
So you think there was only one trip?
Ah – brilliant! – so he might have done it over more than one trip. That’s one mystery solved then.
Do you think the trip/s would be recorded on CCTV?
No idea! Why don’t you tell me – this is your theory, right?
Well obviously, this completely discredits my review of the EPN article.
Watch the conspirologists’ modus operandi in action…
Follow the “logic”.
A man moves suitcases containing weapons to a hotel room. He may well have appeared on CCTV doing this, but I refuse to say so, therefore I have no credibility. Therefore an article about the 9/11 building collapses in a mainstream physics journal does NOT mean that mainstream physics journals have published about the 9/11 building collapses.
That I point out this contradiction proves that I work for the CIA.
There is no such thing as conspirological thinking, and claiming there is further proves I’m working for the CIA.
Why not just say “I’m always right”, Dave? Because this is what it amounts to.
@ Dave October 14, 2017
Obviously not, in one hit. Multiple trips, or with assistance, of course he could.
BUT, he could not have locked all the gates out of the venue up, except one, just 6 or so minutes before commencing firing.
No es possible.
But someone did; I wonder why, seeing as these exits were in operation in previous nights?
Read next week’s exciting episode….
Paul, the tag team mock those who question the coverage of ‘Las Vegas shooting’, but say they don’t know whether there is CCTV footage of the guns being taken to the room and by whom or witnesses who have some information about this part of the plot.
OK fair enough they don’t know, neither do I, but they are elementary questions and answers should be forthcoming in a genuine police and casino investigation particularly as without it, it makes a ludicrous plot even more fanciful.
You think this “tag team” must be immensely powerful, Exexpat/Dave?
Because your mob outnumbers what you refer to as a “tag-team” (by definition two people) by a factor of what, 5? 10? Yet you consider this “tag team” to be the only problem.
I suppose you’d prefer no opposition at all – just conspiracy fantasists throwing highly dubious, evidence-free and contradictory notions at one another all day long, with a pause only for self-congratulation and head-nodding.
No I think your comments are transparent and pretty hopeless really, illustrated by your mocking of an elementary part of any investigation, implying that asking about CCTV footage and witnesses to how the guns were taken to the room is irrelevant or cranky.
Dave/ Exexpat, that wasn’t what you were doing at all. (Why won’t you even acknowledge the question, btw? Did you post at Exexpat or not?)
You’ve made accusations that Clark and myself are some sort of “tag-team”, which clearly would make you a mob – by your greater numbers. Why do you want to imply such a thing?
Further, you insinuate that both of us are some sort of government agent, working for the state. Working against you, a brave truth-teller after all.
Now you’re trying to imply we’re (or I am, at the least) “hopeless” and “transparent”.
What is it, Dave? Are we some slick agents of the state, or just dupes and some “sheeple” who are too afraid to think about the realities you’ve uncovered?
“Investigation”? You think you’ve done some investigation? You haven’t done anything except accuse those applying critical thinking of being agents! I even told you how to do some investigation!
Not seen this before; a story in the Daily Mail about the brother of a victim of 911, who happens to be a trained theoretical physicist, and who doesn’t believe the official narrative;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html