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).
Wow ! More concrete foreknowledge; I always thought the warning calls telling Israelis to avoid the WTC on 9/11 was probably an urban myth, but was always troubled by the fact that there were only four Israelis killed, (three in the towers & one on a plane), from the 4,000 that should have been at work that day; here’s Al Franken, a US Senator, (whom I got to know a bit about through the George Galloway radio show at the time GG went to confront that US Senate Committee) , actually admits that he got the “Jew Call” from former NYC Major Ed Koch, advising him not to go to his WTC office on 9/11 !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS9qMLyVdTA
More concrete foreknowledge.
https://www.haaretz.com/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579
Odigo is/was Israeli-owned and the recipients of the pager warnings were Israeli nationals. To the credit of Odigo, they voluntarily brought this incident to the attention of the FBI but despite irrefutable evidence of fore-knowledge, the investigation sank like a stone and there was no mention of it in the 911 commission report.
Macky: “Don’t go to work on the 23rd of Elul” ”
You do know Al Franken is actually a stand-up comedian and comic writer, yes?
Al Franken had a show on Air America Radio for years, which I listened to. I’ve also got a couple of his books, and this is simply his sort of humour. You can tell by the way he says it. You can surmise how dishonest that soundbite is by how very clipped it is.
Seriously – the Major of New York called him up at his office in the WTC (which he’s never mentioned before, btw) and told him not to go to work that day – and you just took that literally?
You are in denial Glenn; this is not the sort of thing anybody would joke about.
Have a listen to a longer extract of him reading this bit, does it really sound like he is joking about visiting his mum & admitting playing golf the next day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa25s5pqluI
Franken delivers that remark in the context of describing lies about 9/11, and then follows it with “Actually…” to begin his story of visiting his mum. I think those are two pretty strong indications that the earlier section wasn’t actual.
Franken seems to be based in Minneapolis, about a thousand miles from New York – a long way to commute just to write in an ugly, wobbly office block. Maybe he lived nearer New York at the time, but I’ve seen no indication of that.
There might be a footnote in the paperback edition of the book this is an excerpt from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them#Reception
Macky, since when has playing golf required an “admission”? And accusing Glenn of denial is to play the man not the ball. And try watching the following; Franken says there should be an ongoing, continuous investigation of 9/11:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmGQedEAxfk
I have found that Franken moved from Manhattan to Minnesota in 2006 or 2007, but in 2004 he was in New Hampshire, whether resident or visiting I do not know.
Ok Glenn, on further investigation I realise that this is certainly ambiguous, so I apologise & withdraw the state of denial comment; if Franken is “joking” then it’s in very poor taste, and even more so that he didn’t/hasn’t clarified it; still I believe the two other instances that indicate foreknowledge,( insider trading & the Dancing Israelis), are valid, and Node’s “Odigo” factor certainly warrants looking into.
What to make of this moving testimony ? (Note the “center core of building was destroyed” comment) :
http://georgewashington.blogspot.fr/2007/11/911-family-member-patty-casazza.html
At 06:09, Patty Casazza says the Jersey Girls asked their political representatives for an investigation, but:
– “Nothing happened. Nothing happened until we went to the press…”
Will any Truther yet admit that there’s more to the hated “MSM” than merely being government mouthpieces repeating “the official story”? I repeatedly accuse the media of propaganda, but will any Truther admit that the reality is somewhat more complex than the monolithic “official story” of Truther mythology?
Clearly, Patty Casazza’s husband worked above the impact zone. The impact made the staircases impassable; the (inadequate) staircases were in the buildings’ cores. The sections of the cores below remained standing longest; their remnants can seen in video clips which accompany Ketcham’s testimony.
This is one of the issues addressed by the changes in building codes recommended by NIST. The cores of the Twin Towers were steel truss-work, with only plasterboard (“Sheetrock”) cladding. If I remember rightly, NIST’s recommendations include concrete protection.
At 10:30: – “The rooftop doors were not supposed to be locked, according to those buildings’ permits, but, then the building is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey which is pretty much a group which can write its own laws…”
Over and over again I have posted this information, yet repeatedly I am dismissed and ridiculed, othered, as a “supporter of the official story”, essentially a stooge of government. I can’t think of a more effective method of driving away supporters. Will you accept it from this widow, to whom Macky has linked?
Patty Casazza said that she and her colleagues sneaked Sibel Edmonds into the Commission. They forced the commission to hear testimony from multiple whistle-blowers, but they were not heard in public and were not reported in the media.
Very powerful testimony. The date, targets and method were known to US authorities in advance.
Macky, that’s very generous of you, and I hope we have a reasonable conversation here, because your perspective does matter. At one time, I was pretty convinced this was a controlled demolition, now – I’m not so sure about that. This does not a popularity competition winner make – because whichever side of the divide one might be on over 9/11, I’m not just nodding in agreement with either any more.
Believe me, I thought I was convinced at one stage. It was so obvious, why couldn’t people see it? It’s almost like having been beset by religion, and then dragged oneself out of the delusion. But nothing like as obvious.
Anyway, about Franken – he’s a Senator now of course, but used to be a quite good stand-up. Very pro-Israel. A bit “political” to say the least, but he did outright condemn the Iraq war – he’s pretty kosher on things generally, and definitely doesn’t toe the line with corporate Dems or teabaggers/Reps./fascists.
No slight intended at all, but are you very particularly familiar with the Jewish sense of humour? It’s pretty near the knuckle at times, and often likes to mock both the personal image of being “special” and “chosen”, but also the externally viewed idea of Jews as being entirely privileged with special access and dispensation, by mere dint of being a Jew.
This serves not only to knock the more pious among their ranks, but gives a kick in the shins to Nazis, who start foaming at the mouth saying “See? See? They admit it!”
For instance, as a Jew, of course the Major of New York (himself a Jew) would take a minute out of his day to call him personally – one Jew to another – to warn him!
If you want to hear plenty of good quality journalism, and gain an appreciation of Jewish humour, listen to Sam Seder on https://majority.fm/report/
Great fellow, followed his podcasts for quite some time.
*
Anyway, I’m afraid I’m getting more sceptical about controlled demolition. Although I’ll still wear my “Controlled Demolition” T-shirt out occasionally – particularly now I’ve lost a bit of weight, and can wear T-shirts of quite some vintage again.
@Glenn, what caused you to doubt your previous controlled demolition belief, and what do you now think is the reason for the free-fall collapse of the WTC buildings ?
Macky, WTC building, singular. Only WTC7 may have undergone free-fall, and only for 2.25 seconds of its 15 second or so fall. Free-fall of the Twin Towers is a false meme, the sort of thing that so irritates me about Trutherism.
The Twin Towers came nowhere near free-fall when seen in the context of the relevant physics. I know they were fast, but there are essentially only two possibilities; acceleration or deceleration of collapse*, and if the structure was such that the collapses would accelerate, they were bound to be over in seconds.
* I have ignored the theoretically possibility of uniform velocity because it is infinitely unlikely.
Oh dear ! Al Franken needs to be very careful as his “joke” has being taken at face value by a lot of people;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS9wi-Ruv4Y
Maybe another indication of foreknowledge to add to Insider Trading/Dancing Israeli/Odigo, and yet another one with Israeli connections ! :
http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/zim-shipping/
(This site has a very detailed page about the Dancing Israelis)
You’d best check me on this, but I think Israel was one of the countries whose security services tried to warn the US authorities about the coming attacks, but were ignored.
That would make sense, since Israel would have been unlikely to risk their operatives revealing Israeli foreknowledge, as they did, unless Israel had covered itself by giving a warning.
Sadly enough, that would make sense. If these Israelis were part of an operation that was monitoring it, and sending back intelligence, it would have been a huge vindication of their dire warnings when it actually happened. This sort of mindset doubtless sets in with people deeply entrenched.
Highly inappropriate, heartless and perhaps indulging in thoughts of what might lie in the path of all this, to the benefit of Israel and US opinion of it. These “Dancing Israelis” might have been celebrating the fact they had proven themselves right, at last, when everyone else was telling them to shut up and sit down. We don’t know. Speculation is not proof.
So to summarise, the evidence of foreknowledge is not at all surprising as both the US & Israelis governments DID know in advance; so the obvious question is why was it not prevented ?! Did the Neocons around Bush persuade him that it was worth taking a ”Pearl Harbour” type hit in order a) to advance the Neocon agenda of “Project of the New American Century” b) To kick off TWOT, and in doing to make a lot of money (weapons sales & oil/rebuilding etc, or c) to help Israel, by then having a pretext to attack Israel’s enemies ?
All these are not mutually exclusive, and it’s possible that it was the tempting combination itself that was the deciding factor. Regardless of the reason(s) the fact remains that at the very least there was a conspiracy to allow 911 to happen, which in itself means that all the Neocons and people who knew & allowed it to happen, are complicit to the mass murder of their fellow citizens, but instead of being held account, they are using their power & influence to obscure their crimes.
Just seems astounding to me that they have gotten away with it for so long ! No doubt because of all this beyond the (Overton Window) pale concerted Conspiracy Theory ridiculing, & all this squabbling about how the buildings came down, instead of allowing the focus to be on the examination of the clear evidence of foreknowledge & complicity that actually is staring us in the face !
Macky, that is a delightful post. By your standards, naturally. I’ve toggled between a number of these suspicions, and sadly, the more I find out the less I think I know for sure.
Appreciate the reply.
Macky, the critical questions are who knew what, and who thought they knew things that were in fact disinformation.
There are tens of thousands of US public employees who would have acted to try and stop 9/11 if they were in possession of information indicating it would happen. Those people must either not have known, or what they did know was misleading, or contradicted by other evidence. There must be many Saudis and even more Israelis in the same position; people with ties to New York; friends, relatives, or just people who oppose violence.
For there to be so many indications of foreknowledge but for the event to have proceeded implies either a conspiracy so vast and diverse as to be essentially impossible, or a very tightly bonded core of a few with extensive access to communications intercept and injection, with masterful control of compartmentalisation of information.
Just wanted to add that when you consider what the US has been & still is doing in Syria, it’s easy to see why many people do think that going after Israel’s enemies was the main motive; It’s also public record that for Iraq, Libya & Syria, Israel & the Neocons both pushed very hard for each of these countries to be attacked, and is still pushing for Iran also. Then there’s General Wesley Clark testimony of that infamous Neocon list of seven countries already marked for regime change;
“Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!””
I broadly agree with Macky’s comment above (October 21, 06:10), and Wesley Clark’s story is a favourite of mine to show visitors who don’t have a handle on Neocon policy in the Middle East.
I condemn the “Israel are the puppet-masters” argument; it is merely a reformulation of the long-standing anti-Semitic trope. But the overlap among neoconservatists and neozionists is clear, and the convergence of their interests is obvious.
Macky, that is an extensively referenced article, most references to mainstream sources or (purportedly) official documents. It is the type of article I appreciate; the author has obviously done extensive work, and has displayed the working. Thanks for this.
Macky, it is as well you didn’t link to the home page of that site as the author has been completely suckered by Twin Tower “controlled demolition” theory; I would simply have dismissed it as more of the same nonsense, and not seen the extensive work with official documents and professional journalistic sources.
Macky you’re right again. We have Clark to thank for this.
“An in-depth investigative report In December 2013 by this author on the “Celebrating/Dancing Israelis” shows that the FBI detected explosives in the Israelis’ van when they were apprehended on 9/11.[47] Although the FBI analyzed explosive samples taken from the Celebrating Israelis’ (CIs) vehicle, the lab results were never revealed in the FBI investigative documents, and were curiously still pending about two weeks after they were taken.[48] There is no rational or explainable reason for the FBI not to have completed the explosive tests in this timeframe and the most logical reason for the FBI not showing the results is because the van tested positive for explosives.
The CIs happened to work for an Israeli-related moving company in the NJ/NY area, Urban Moving Systems (“UMS”), which was also apparently searched for explosives two days after 9/11[49] (There were also at least three other Israeli-related moving companies in the immediate area with one under investigation by the FBI in conjunction with moving one of the hijackers.)[50] Coincidently, CI Yaron Shmuel worked for an Israeli explosives company after 9/11, which suggests he may have had a background in explosives.[51] In addition, five of fourteen Israeli Art students, or 37 percent, who provided their Israeli military backgrounds to US investigators worked in explosive ordnance units.[52] Thus, Israel had the expertise and human resources in the US to wire the WTC’s for demolition and the moving companies to help transport the explosives and devices.
It just so happens that at least two of the CIs were Mossad operatives and were involved in other US counterintelligence investigations according to various media sources.[53] The New York Times noted that the FBI even suspected the CIs of assisting the hijackers.[54] Several news agencies also reported that UMS was an Israeli intelligence front company.[55] The owner of UMS, Dominik Suter, fled back to Israel on Sept. 14, 2001 after being questioned by the FBI two days earlier.[56] In May 2002 the names of Suter and his wife appeared on an FBI 9/11 Watch List Report, which included among others, OBL, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”), all 19 hijackers (why if dead?), and 15 Arab individuals from Hamburg.[57] Out of over 300 names, those of Suter and his wife are two of just a few that are not Arab names.[58] This author’s investigative report showed that there was an obvious FBI cover-up in the investigation and that the CIs had foreknowledge of the attacks and that the CIs and other Israelis were probably more deeply involved in the 9/11 operation.[59]
Given the CIs and UMSs various connections to Israeli intelligence and explosives, and Zim’s known support and cover for Israeli intelligence, there is the possibility that the explosives used to take down the three WTC towers were manufactured in Israel and imported to the US on Zim ships. Coincidently, Zim’s main NY/NJ shipping port on 9/11 was Red Hook Port (“RHP”) in Brooklyn, which is a mere 3-mile drive to the WTC and by far the closest and most conveniently accessible to the WTC of the four NY/NJ area ports.[60] However, RHP is also the smallest (less than 4% of total NY/NJ port volume) and most logistically inferior of all the ports with no rail or air service and poor highway access. A December 1996 New York Times article noted that RHP excels in “specialized cargoes” and products that can be uploaded quickly and delivered to the immediate New York City area at night.[61] Although Zim received New York City tax credits in conjunction with the move to RHP, no other large international shippers like Zim appear to have chosen the small and inefficient RHP as their primary NY/NJ port. Zim is not at RHP now, and they may have moved out as early as November 2002.[62]
There are also several other potential Israeli connections to the Red Hook Port. At least one, and as many as four of the Celebrating Israelis, lived about one and a half miles from RHP. In addition, another large Israeli related moving company (Moishes Moving) had an office/warehouse within a couple miles of RHP and two rental trucks found at UMS shortly after 9/11, were from a rental company located about two miles from RHP.[63] Zim first entered into its RHP contract in November 1996, and there is a confluence of alleged pilot hijackers and Israeli-connected events around that time which suggests the possible initiation of the 9/11 deep cover operation:
March 1996 – Zim Shipping extends its lease at the WTC to February 28, 2006, locking itself into a long 10-year lease obligation with no apparent concern for high leasing costs (see above).
April 1996 – Alleged pilot hijacker Ziad Jarrah arrives in Greifswald, Germany, and Marwan Shehhi moves to Hamburg (Jarrah moves to Hamburg around September 1997).[64]
April 1996 – Alleged pilot hijacker Hani Hanjour moves to the US for seven months. Hanjour will have several stays in US and allegedly come back for the last time in Dec. 2000.[65]
November 1996 – Zim Shipping transfers its NY/NJ port operations from the area’s most modern and busiest port of Port Elizabeth to the much smaller and logistically inferior Red Hook Port.[66]
April 1997 – The likely Israeli intelligence front company Urban Moving Systems is incorporated.[67]
A second confluence of events between the hijackers and various Israeli groups takes place in late 1999/early 2000, perhaps indicating a subsequent phase of the deep cover operation:
December 1999/January 2000 – Hamburg pilot hijackers Atta, Jarrah, and Shehhi allegedly attend OBL’s training camp in Afghanistan and allegedly are quickly chosen by OBL for the 9/11 operation (though the hijackers Afghanistan travel is not substantiated by the redacted FBI Hijacker Timeline).[68] [69]
November 1999 – Zim renews its Red Hook Port contract with the City of New York, probably for the same three-year period as in the original contract.[70]
December 1999 – Zim claims that they started looking for a new office location; although there is no other evidence to support this claim.[71]
Around October 1999 – UMS moves from a personal residence into its Weehawken office.[72]
Beginning of 2000 – Israeli Art Student activity begins in the US.[73]
Beginning 2000 – Hijackers Khalid Mihdhar and Nawaf Hazmi enter the US and move to San Diego.[74]
At least two of the CIs apprehended on 9/11 were under investigation in relation to other US counterintelligence investigations including one in San Diego.[75] “
“We have Clark to thank for this.” And you of course Macky for pointing out the section.
Of course, it is never right to leap to conclusions. It is possible that the site is a spoof, arguments backed by sources that do not support the points claimed, and/or the apparently official documents linked in fact fictitious. For articles with so many references it will take a long time to check, but on the face of it it certainly doesn’t look like a spoof.
Gladio B keeps coming to mind – or Gladio B resources subverted, or a Gladio B off-shoot.
@ Macky October 20, 2017 at 21:59
Good find. I had no idea of most of the info there.
It looks like sooner or later they are planning another 9/11 and I have little doubt it is the same planners behind it as for 9/11. I also think that somebody else will take the rap as with the first. I shudder to think.
http://theduran.com/us-security-chief-warns-isis-or-al-qaeda-want-to-have-the-big-explosion-like-they-did-on-911/
Now he’s secure, its a chance for Corbyn to prove his anti-war credentials by exposing the false flags, to pre-empt the big one!
He’s yet to see the light about the “White Helmets” in Syria, so don’t hold your breath.
Corbyn has long since established his anti-war credentials by consistently voting against war.
His previous votes never stopped a war, this time he can, by exposing the false flags, particularly as I doubt a vote will be allowed about WWIII.
Hmm. So you actually think everyone will say, “Oh, sorry – so that’s what happened!” and all the people guilty of “False Flags” from the parting of the Red Sea up to a bicycle collision that just happened outside my apartment, they’ll all realise the game is up and confess all?
To be serious about something, in other words, you have to make yourself look like a complete lunatic in the eyes of the public. Surely even you appreciate there’s no end to the so-called plots which need exposing, from chemtrails to crisis actors. And you think Corbyn is lacking because (unlike the conspiracy mob here) he doesn’t buy into every last thing he reads online.
So are you saying only a lunatic opposes WWIII?
Dave, why do you continually ignore what I’ve actually said, and ask me if I’m saying something completely different? That’s a rather silly and annoying habit you have there.
Good detailed article on the Saudi connections;
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/71-71/6667-did-saudi-arabia-attack-us-on-911
Will it actually happen ?!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-john-f-kennedy-assassination-classified-files-lee-harvey-oswald-jack-ruby-a8012696.html
Don’t know what’s in those documents or whether they’ll be released, but there is absolutely no way that anything remotely approaching the truth will be made public. To do so would endorse and validate conspiracy theories and thus waste years of CIA effort conditioning dupes to use the phrase instead of reasoned argument.
I’ve asked and asked and asked for an alternative phrase to cover the sort of faulty thinking displayed repeatedly on this thread and on so-called conspiracy theory sites that infest the Web these days. You and your ilk refuse to provide one, apparently preferring to use the known abuse of the phrase as cover for lazy (or even absent) thinking. This makes you part of the problem rather than the solution.
Node has again classified as “dupes” anyone who uses the term “conspiracy theory”. I therefore outline some elements of the faulty thinking commonly displayed on threads such as this, and referred to in common parlance as “conspiracy theory”:
* Assuming there is such a thing as “the official narrative”.
* Compiling “anomalous” details and claiming that they disprove “the official narrative”.
* Reflexively supporting highly improbable alternatives to “the official narrative”, such as Twin Tower demolition theory.
* Dismissing all and any who apply critical thinking to the improbable alternatives as “supporters of the official narrative”.
* Consistently and apparently reflexively attacking any fact or reasoning that might call into question any of the improbable alternatives.
* 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.
* Consistently and apparently reflexively attacking any person who questions another exhibiting the described mode of thought, despite the other’s favoured improbable facts contradicting their own – ie. gang formation, group dynamic.
I genuinely don’t understand why you claim there is no such thing as the official narrative. The official narratives in the case of 9/11 and JFK were contained in the Government sanctioned accounts: the 9/11 Commission Report; and the Warren Commission report.
What’s wrong with saying that?
In cases like the Las Vegas shooting the Official Narrative is the version of events handed down from officially sanctioned sources such as the FBI or police spokesmen.
When it comes to dramatic events such as this, Journalists operating in the mainstream media invariably treat this official account as canonical and it would never enter their heads to even contemplate the notion that the police account might be false.
In the case of Las Vegas there were quite a few eye witnesses present at the time who claim there was more than one shooter.
They could be easily have been mistaken. No doubt about that. But we will never know because their account contradicts the official version and are therefore taboo.
@ KingofWelshNoir October 21, 2017 at 18:19
Here’s another angle on Vegas: ‘What Are We Seeing Over the Vegas Skyline in This New Footage??’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j35hVO6sPg&feature=youtu.be
And a very important fact that hasn’t seemingly got much publicity: whilst on previous night, all the gates were open to leave the event, but on that night, the gates were locked at 22.00 hrs., minutes before the shooting started, with only one left open. So many people ran to their nearest exit, only to find it locked.
If you read NIST NCSTAR1 you will see that it is based on a collection of other reports compiled before it. Some parts of those reports contradict NCSTAR1, so which of them is “the official narrative”? The 9/11 Commission Report somewhat contradicts NCSTAR1. The Congressional Report somewhat contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report. A load of the 9/11 Commission Report was redacted, so does “the official narrative” include the redacted part or not?
The last of the above is obviously a glaring contradiction; the others are minor. But over the following decades the 25 and 50 Year Rules will come to apply to certain documents, and they will be released, somewhat contradicting the earlier reports. Then, which will be “the official narrative”?
But worse, conspiracy theorists routinely claim that the “MSM” precisely echoes “the official narrative”, which is not true.
A whole load of lazy, sloppy arguments, based on lazy, sloppy, usually binary thinking. But anyone pointing this out is accused by conspiracy theorists of “supporting the official narrative”. And yet you don’t see why Nafeez Ahmed gets upset about it; you just slag him off for calling such thinkers by the name that is used for them; “conspiracy theorists”.
– “When it comes to dramatic events such as this, Journalists operating in the mainstream media invariably treat this official account as canonical and it would never enter their heads to even contemplate the notion that the police account might be false”
Uh huh? So how come the UK government were forced to revise their time-line of the 7/7 London bombings? How come Jean Charles de Menezes isn’t still described as a suicide bomber? How come the Guardian published the video of the last moments of Ian Tomlinson?
There is huge systemic bias in the mass media, but the situation is not as monolithic as conspiracy theorists like to pretend.
How come the Warren Commission report is contradicted by the 1979 United States House Select Committee on Assassinations? Which is “the official narrative”?
Abandon this term. If a document is contradicted by evidence, name and cite the relevant document! But conspiracy theorists apparently have an aversion to reading the material they dismiss!
OK let’s agree to differ. My opinion on whether there is such a thing as the ‘Official Narrative’ is outlined in my above post, and I do not wish to change a jot of it after reading your post.
As for Nafeez Ahmed, as far as I recall, I did not object to him using the phrase ‘conspiracy theorist’, or even labelling me one because I consider myself one in the commonly understood meaning of the term.
I objected to the snakelike manner in which he:
1. Disowned a position he had previously adopted and written a brilliant book expounding.
2. Acted as if he had never written that book or held the opinions outlined in it.
3. Mocked those who still espoused his earlier position.
Sorry, KoWN, I’ll agree to disagree, but how do I identify which official reports you mean when you refer to “the official narrative”? How do I accept your disagreement when mainstream reports contradict a statement from a government official? I can see I’m going to get called an agent and a sheeple again, and there’s no way I can change my behaviour to prevent that other than by becoming utterly supine and never contradicting any conspiracy theorists, no matter how much they contradict each other.
Put yourself in my position, and also remember that Craig has been accused of self-censorship, and then try reading Nafeez Ahmed’s article again. It begins “I get trolled a lot these days…”:
http://www.nafeezahmed.com/2015/08/911-conspiracy-theory-and-bullshit.html
Maybe Trump isn’t all that interested in protecting the CIA?
“But maybe not all of them.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/20/trump-block-release-jfk-kennedy-assassination-files-documents-215732
‘Blackwater in Somalia?’: http://www.pravdareport.com/hotspots/conflicts/13-01-2010/111632-blackwater-0/#comments
“US agencies are going to launch suicide bombings in public places in Mogadishu. They have tried it in Algeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan”. He added that the target will be the market of Bakara. The source apparently warned a meeting of tribal elders that Xe Services (formerly Blackwater) has entered Somalia and has already started recruiting operationals to carry out its attacks….’
Читайте больше на http://www.pravdareport.com/hotspots/conflicts/13-01-2010/111632-blackwater-0/#comments
Somalia – one of the 7 countries in the list Wesley Clark was told about in 2001.
‘A Guide to Mainstream Media ‘Fake News’ War Propaganda’:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/02/14/fake-news-week-a-guide-to-mainstream-media-fake-news-war-propaganda/
Some people believe we shouldn’t be too hard on the MSM ‘Presstitutes’.
After all, they only enable hundreds of thousands to multi-millions of people to be killed in wars, occupations and military interventions by spreading government lies and disinformation, which sways the public to support military action.
A secret is only dangerous when its a secret. Therefore keeping a secret, secret is the danger for Trump, rather than revealing it. In other words revealing the truth about JFK’s assassination, if true that is, could protect rather than endanger Trump, as long as he does it before they kill him.
I am increasingly suspecting an insidious undercurrent to this thread.
Of course it can be difficult to differentiate useful idiocy from camoflaged malice. I ask commenters to review my recent exchanges.
My recent exchanges continue, and can be found here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/feed/
https://palestinelegal.org/the-palestine-exception/
In this quote, Palestinian supporters talk about false accusations of antisemitism being used to stifle legitimate debate. Elsewhere there is reference to well-meaning dupes getting taken in by this behaviour and hence the insidious spread of censorship into other areas of discussion. There is mention of zealots who close down discussion on the merest suspicion that a contributor might secretly harbour these ‘proscribed’ beliefs, even if they are unvoiced. How these Palestinian supporters must wish for an adult, rational debate rather than one dictated by inappropriate Pavlovian responses.
1. If there is no such thing as the official narrative, what is a conspiracy theory?
2. ‘Anomalies’ occur when the official narrative is at odds with the facts. NIST says no explosives were used to bring down Building 7, therefore the free-fall descent is anomalous. Change the narrative and admit the use of explosives and the anomaly disappears.
The real question is, why do people defend a narrative at odds with the facts? I suggest it is because belief is not based on evidence or facts but upon what people are told by authority, and accepted by the group. As long as the consensus accepts the story given to them only a handful of heretics will dare disagree with it. Once it was a sin to say the world was round, now it is a sin to say it’s flat.
The wind can change, and so can the consensus. That happened very visibly with Jimmy Savile. For years the stories circulated about Jimmy Savile were dismissed as conspiracy theory. Then came the Newsnight programme and suddenly it became acceptable to circulate those same theories. What changed? The people were given permission by a trusted Voice of Authority, the BBC. But until that permission is granted those who question the consensus view will receive the same treatment as meted out to all apostates throughout the ages: burning at the (metaphorical) stake.
– “…admit the use of explosives and the anomaly disappears”
Do you know that for a fact, or is it merely something you’ve read?
Your question is irrelevant. Do you deny the point?
KingofWelshNoir, you wrote:
– “The real question is, why do people defend a narrative at odds with the facts? I suggest it is because belief is not based on evidence or facts but upon what people are told by authority, and accepted by the group”
so I’m asking, is your belief based on fact? That is relevant.
You are the world’s best goal post mover.
The “goal posts” have not yet been placed. The positions at which you and Macky place them differ.
Can’t believe that such a common term is so contentious that it needs to be explained !
“This means the most common and generally believed story about something that could be explained in more than one way. It could also mean the story that is promoted or enforced by a powerful faction of society. Here are some examples.
The official narrative about Europeans migrating to North America is that it was an “empty”, sparsely-populated wilderness. An alternative narrative is that it was already occupied by a significantly large population of indigenous people, who were displaced and decimated by genocidal practices to make room for the newcomers.
The official narrative is that the products made by Apple Computer are technologically superior. An alternative narrative is that Apple is a skillful marketer and designer of product aesthetics.
An official narrative is that there is a “disease” called “depression”, that is caused by “imbalances” of neurotransmitters in the brain, and can be treated with psychoactive drugs. An alternative narrative is that lifestyle, exercise, and the quality of social life are more significant sources and treatment strategies.”
So what you’re asserting is that “the official narrative” is the most commonly believed folklore.
Your definition contradicts that given by KingofWelshNoir, here:
– “The official narratives in the case of 9/11 and JFK were contained in the Government sanctioned accounts: the 9/11 Commission Report; and the Warren Commission report. […] In cases like the Las Vegas shooting the Official Narrative is the version of events handed down from officially sanctioned sources such as the FBI or police spokesmen. “
So you most certainly should believe “that such a common term is so contentious that it needs to be explained”. You should have corrected KingofWelshNoir’s comment at the time.
While you are busy pretending not to know what ‘the official narrative’ means would you like to answer my question:
‘If there is no such thing as the official narrative, what is a conspiracy theory?’
KingofWelshNoir, why are you even bothering to argue with me? Your own definition of “conspiracy theory” depends upon the definition of “official narrative”, but your definition of the latter differs from Macky’s, so you should be arguing with Macky instead. When you’ve got this sorted out, a meaningful conversation along the lines you suggest between you and I becomes possible. Until then, it is not.
KingofWelshNoir – “…silly twerp who needs a boot up his arse”
MODS, that’s not an ad-hominen, it’s from his own home page.
Malcolm, I’m the boot.
Macky, I’ve tried :
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-109/#comment-669694
So. You wrote:
– “‘Anomalies’ occur when the official narrative is at odds with the facts. NIST says no explosives were used to bring down Building 7, therefore the free-fall descent is anomalous. Change the narrative and admit the use of explosives and the anomaly disappears”
I’m saying that’s a “belief [of yours] not based on evidence or facts but upon what [you have been told by someone you took as an] authority, and accepted by [a] group [you’ve chosen to agree with]”
KingofWelshNoir, I expect you’ve been feeling frustrated, and feeling, note: feeling, that I have been arguing illogically. Note that our feelings are NOT part of our rational minds but part of our emotional system. Our emotions are not the measure of the logicality or otherwise of an argument.
I expect you have read somewhere that free-fall of a building proves controlled demolition, and have accepted that as a conclusive argument. However, until you test it, it is merely a belief which you have accepted, one which you share with a group, and as such belongs in the same category as belief in what you deride as “the official narrative”. The differences lie merely in who you choose to take as an authority, and the size of which group you choose to agree with.
Because I know some physics and have paid attention to an engineer, I know that the “free-fall implies controlled demolition” argument is incomplete; the reality is considerably more complicated than that. The argument is not conclusive, so some degree of doubt is called for.
Complications that have occurred to me:
– Did free-fall occur? – Contradicted by the evidence.
– Was the object “a building”? – Definitely not.
– Does controlled demolition typically cause free-fall? Probably not.
What do you call a 2kg chicken in the photosphere of the sun?
The towers fell at free fall speed due to explosives. You say the towers fell short of free fall speed by two seconds, so it wasn’t free fall speed, and thus imply as it wasn’t free fall no explosives used. So your headline difference is the extra 2 seconds disproves explosives, when of course it doesn’t, but illustrates your dishonest dissembling.
Not here Dave; I’m hoping to continue my discussion with Kingof WelshNoir. Below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
– A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is a derogatory one.
According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected. Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, as Barkun writes, a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore “a matter of faith rather than proof”.
“A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, …..”
Who decides the theory is unwarranted?
“….generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts.”
They may do but not always. And who decides what the “prevailing understanding of history” is?
“The term is a derogatory one.”
It certainly is used that way cf :Professor Jamey Hecht:
“THE TERM ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY’
This phrase is among the tireless workhorses of establishment discourse. Without it, disinformation would be much harder than it is. “Conspiracy theory” is a trigger phrase, saturated with intellectual contempt and deeply anti-intellectual resentment. It makes little sense on its own, and while it’s a priceless tool of propaganda, it is worse than useless as an explanatory category.”
Back to Wiki:
“According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.”
Not all conspiracy theories have to conform to these aspects.
“Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, as Barkun writes, a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore “a matter of faith rather than proof”.
i.e. another common feature of some but not all conspiracy theories.
To expand on my comments, I’d like to note that the use of the expression “conspiracy theory” has to be one of the most astonishingly successful pieces of psychological warfare of modern times.
Five points:
(1) The mechanism being used is that, instead of trying to hide information away, it is brought out into the open but in such a way that no one takes it seriously. This can be done by e.g. “contaminating” the info by mixing in stuff about UFOs, lizards from Mars etc. or by linking the info relayed to a dubious informant – self proclaimed messiah, anti Semite etc. or by exaggerating aspects of the info to create a straw man etc. All of these tactics feed off an encouraged Either / Or approach to info i.e. after various threads are indiscriminately piled into one monolithic chunk it is assumed that Either it is all true Or it is all false. And once the basic info has been discredited it can be permitted to circulate endlessly. In a society that prides itself on permitting freedom of information the attraction, perhaps even the necessity, of this mechanism is obvious.
(2) Controversy over such artificially discredited info can divert attention away from the defects in any officially sanctioned account. It may even be assumed that the easy demolishing of a straw man alternative somehow proves the validity of the official version i.e. reversal of the burden of proof.
(3) The expression “conspiracy theory” is always used in a highly selective way. As has been frequently noted, the mainstream or official account of 9/11 i.e. Al Qaeda’s nineteen hijackers etc. IS in fact a conspiracy theory but is never described as one. The only conspiracy theories described as such are those that involve OUR governments, OUR intelligence agencies etc. This is so because….
(4) The expression is always assumed to denote stupidity, gullibility, insanity, immaturity etc. Either this or the expression is trivialised by reference to “conspiracy buffs “ or “conspiracy fans”. (As Michael Parenti noted: Is it possible to have Holocaust buffs?) The very notion that “our side” could themselves implement such a thing as 9/11 or JFK’s assassination or whatever, is considered to be simply ridiculous etc. Considering everything that various Western administrations have done over the decades I have no doubt at all that they WOULD implement such things. What we should be concerned about is whether they COULD. A conspiracy theory should be treated like any other theory i.e. the only valid question is – To what extent is it true?
(5) The alternative to a conspiracy theory is usually a theory involving coincidence, incompetence or even chaos. Thus the rejection of conspiracy, taken to an extreme, results in the usual sentiment that, “We just don’t know anything. The world is a weird place. Only the immature and psychologically weak think that everything can be explained.” etc. Ultimately this leads to a denial of rationality itself. We have here a typical Orwellian reversal – It is infantile to want evidence backed causal chains whereas we are being grown up if we simply accept that “stuff just happens”.
@ George October 23, 2017 at 17:26
Most of us on this thread are aware of this, but in case you or anyone else isn’t, here is when the CIA ‘weaponised’ the expression ‘conspiracy theory’:
‘“Conspiracy Theory”: Foundations of a Weaponized Term’:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/conspiracy-theory-foundations-of-a-weaponized-term/5319708
Not only are more people than ever seeing through the Official Narrative for the BS that it is, getting called a “conspiracy theorist” is becoming more & more a badge of honour;
“I have been observing, literally for years, how the “truthers” are called “conspiracy theorists” while self-righteous morons who don’t have the brains or guts to question the “Party line” condescendingly smile at the “truthers” and lump them with of tin foil hats, flat earth societies and UFOs. So for those of you who have only disdain for these people let me say this to you:
I have come to conclude that the “truthers” are among the best, brightest and most courageous people in the USA and I am deeply grateful to all of them for opening my eyes to what really happened on 9/11.”
The Saker
What arse-licking from the Saker. Don’t you recognise when you’re being manipulated?
“arse-licking” ??
I know a real arse-licker when I see one;
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-121/#comment-702313
Macky, thank you for linking to my earlier comment; it contains valuable information.
I still have enough faith in humanity to believe that most people can tell deserved admiration and respect for a personal associate from manipulative false compliments to complete strangers.
I take it you really believe you’re “among the best, brightest and most courageous people”, as the Saker so generously said.
George, I probably shouldn’t have posted that Wikipedia excerpt because I find it rather inadequate myself. However, you do seem to have confirmed some of Barkum’s criteria in your own comment:
– “The mechanism being used is that, instead of trying to hide information away, it is brought out into the open but in such a way that no one takes it seriously. This can be done by e.g. “contaminating” the info by mixing in stuff about UFOs, lizards from Mars etc. or by linking the info relayed to a dubious informant – self proclaimed messiah, anti Semite etc. or by exaggerating aspects of the info to create a straw man etc.”
You seem to be claiming that the alleged conspirators do this deliberately. So it’s “not what it seems” and “doen’t happen by accident”. In fact, “it’s all connected”.
Where does Twin Tower demolition theory fit into this scheme of yours? Real, or deliberate disinfo to discredit something else?
I noted one mechanism by which information can discredited through guilt by association. This can be demonstrated by the case of David Shayler a British former MI5 officer. The Beeb ran a programme decrying 9/11 “conspiracy theories”. Shayler made a film as response. I viewed Shayler’s film on the internet and felt it was an excellent rebuttal. And then Shayler made an announcement in the Daily Mail that he was the son of god. And, as they say, there you have it!
Now obviously I can only guess about what all this really means and whether it was planned or not. But let me make one perfectly valid point: if someone makes a video and then declares himself the son of god, it automatically renders the video – and all arguments thereon – suspicious. You have a case of guilt by association.
Also – if I put forward any particular conspiracy theory, I do not mean “it’s all connected”. This is a straw man projection.
As for the collapse of the twin towers, I am puzzled as to why that particular topic seems to have dominated this thread. The material was removed and you can say anything about it you want. And – if I may be allowed to speculate – this “black hole” is superbly convenient. And that old reversal of the burden of proof is in full swing here i.e. the fact that no-one can prove it was a controlled demolition is taken to be evidence that it definitely wasn’t.
– “this “black hole” is superbly convenient. And that old reversal of the burden of proof is in full swing here i.e. the fact that no-one can prove it was a controlled demolition is taken to be evidence that it definitely wasn’t”
But there’s zero physical reason to suspect demolition of the Twin Towers; it’s just something someone made up. Anyone can make up anything; doing so doesn’t create some responsibility to disprove it. I can say that genetically engineered termites brought down the Twin Towers, but by removing the wreckage “they” reversed the burden of proof. There was no burden of (dis)proof until I made that up, and there still isn’t afterwards.
It’s a truly bizarre idea; because the Port Authority cleared the wreckage, someone (who? The government? NIST?) is suddenly responsible for disproving any whacky theory that anyone happens to make up!
I see we’re back to the twin towers. OK – those buildings in New York fell. No-one knows how they fell. And nothing can be proven since the material has gone. If you say that “genetically engineered termites brought down the Twin Towers” then that’s something. Is there anything credible to say that the planes brought those buildings down? (Including building 7?) These buildings fell and there must be some explanation and if the “official account” says NO! No controlled demolition then the onus is on someone to give another explanation.
And “zero physical reason to suspect demolition of the Twin Towers” is ludicrous hyperbole. It’s an explanation that fits what we saw i.e. collapses in seconds.
It is known perfectly well how the Twin Towers collapsed. Major damage and extensive serious fire led to structural failure (perimeter buckling recorded on video and photographs) causing the top sections to fall onto the standing sections beneath, resulting in rapid total destruction.
Structural engineers the world over understand this; a tiny, tiny fraction dissent. Building codes (regulations) have been changed because of it. Some people pretend that none of the above is true, and for that wilful blindness they get called “conspiracy theorists”.
And what’s more, the description given above is exactly what it looked like.
There is simply no need to posit any exotic theory.
It is known perfectly well how the Twin Towers collapsed. Demolition charges were set up all around the building to create the desired effect. And this is why the material was taken away.
I can play that game too.
George, there’s nothing I can do to stop you playing games with an atrocity that killed nearly three thousand people and served as a pretext for the “War on Terror”. Your games might even prove convincing to some.
I prefer not to play games which is why I constantly refer to fact and logical reasoning. In your haste to win the game you are playing with these deaths, you contradicted yourself. First you wrote (October 23, 22:18 above); “…the twin towers. […] No-one knows how they fell”, but then you wrote (above); “It is known perfectly well how the Twin Towers collapsed. Demolition charges were set up all around the building to create the desired effect”.
If you want to play games with mass murder, there are plenty of suitable computer games. Please do not play with real lives, because that is no game.
This lack of consistency is how I recognise conspiracy theorists.
What I was saying Clark is that if you can pronounce blase ex-cathedra statements in the passive voice then so can I. So now you are giving us sanctimonious emotional blackmail too?
George, there is a difference between open honesty and emotional blackmail. You insinuated that I do not examine myself, so I told you my state of mind at the time. On a different morning you would have received a different report. That is openness and honesty.
Had I said “accept my argument or I will kill myself”, that would have been emotional blackmail.
But you should remember that your “game playing” carries consequences, because some take matters of mass murder and foreign policy much more seriously.
Far from being “ex cathedra”, the explanation of the collapses of the Twin Towers is scientific and rational; not a single university or professional body in the world dissents from damage -> fire -> structural failure -> progressive collapse of the Twin Towers. Or are you one of these people who regards science as “just another belief system”?
Look out for that “contentious term” again ! 😀
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/09/september-11-2001-questions-believe-official-story.html
Dave, I don’t claim to “disprove explosives”. I claim that explosives played no role after collapse initiation in the Twin Towers, ie. that those collapses proceeded under gravity, no matter what initiated them.
If you wish to discuss the physics, please make your statements adequately specific, please be prepared to revise terms and correct mistakes as we go, and please give me some idea of your ability in physics so I know what I need to explain etc.
But before we start, you have accused me of dishonesty; please tell me what you suspect, and why. There is very little point in continuing with the physics if you think I might be trying to mislead you.
Why would gravity drive the collapse when there was nothing above the collapse to drive it? It was collapsing, actually disintegrating into dust, evenly all the way down, in seconds, with no help from gravity. The reason you persist with such nonsense is to keep the debate in a ‘twilight zone’ to forestall the next question and debate of who was responsible and explains why when that’s raised, the next step, you ask for comments to be deleted.
It’s worth noting, my question to Clark was not, ‘What is a conspiracy theory?’
It was, ‘If there is no such thing as the official narrative, what is a conspiracy theory?’
Over to you Clark.
In the context of this thread, by conspiracy theory I mean simply those theories favoured by the conspiracy theorists. It’s more about why certain things are believed rather than what is believed.
For instance, you claim to believe the 9/11 demolition theories, and you claim to base that on an argument in physics, but I’ll bet you’d never discuss them with engineers or physicists. Conspiracy theorists dismiss any information that doesn’t fit their theories.
LOL ! You best repeat your question KOWN, until you get a answer, or until your interculator self-destructs while repeating “Doesn’t not compute ! Doesn’t not compute !” 😀
Ad hominen, please preserve.
KoWN, I’ll expound for Macky’s benefit. An “official narrative” is necessary to your concept of “conspiracy theory”, not to mine.
Are you aware that your definition of conspiracy theory is a meaningless tautology?
No it’s not, because I already provided a description of conspiracy theorists’ thinking.
Macky, I think we finally have a definition that no one can argue with.
A conspiracy theory is something favoured by conspiracy theorists; and conspiracy theorists are people who favour conspiracy theories.
Amen.
No, I just did it the other way around. I described the faulty thinking of those called “conspiracy theorists”, and defined “conspiracy theory” as the theories they come up with.
It seems logical to me. An anthill is what ants make. Try defining it the other way and you get confusion.
Yes – but you can only comment on the thought processes of “conspiracy theorists” by looking at what they come up with i.e. conspiracy theories. By your logic, the conspiracy theories are indications of madness or gullibilty and the people who come up with them are mad and gullible because they come up with them.
No. First I recognise the illogic and wilful blindness, the dismissing and ignoring of all inconvenient facts, the utter lack of balance and critical thought, and the amplification of details that seem to help establish a specific, indeed a desired conclusion. On the basis of this behaviour I call the person a “conspiracy theorist”, and the theory a “conspiracy theory”.
Clark at October 23, 2017 at 23:34
You just described yourself Calrk.
Please cite and preferably link examples, George, and I will strive to correct myself.
If it’s any help, I’ll define “Foilers” as those tin-foil hat inclined low-evidence based conspiracy theory believers, who will believe absolutely _anything_ as long as it’s good and anti-government and all that. They don’t like to disagree with one another, despite having contradictory stories. But they will rapidly unite against anyone fails to (a) either agree or keep quiet about a fellow Foiler’s conspiracy theory however implausible it might be, and (b) never question any fellow Foiler who’s doing the attacking.
You reckon that rings true around here, KoWN?
I thought we were making definitions. Do you disagree with my definition?
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
😀
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/7d/34/937d34193461ec48ab45466c2dbf8f1c–cheshire-cat-smile-cheshire-cat-quotes.jpg
KingofWelshNoir, the interesting discussion was here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-122/#comment-703322
Former ISI chief Hamid Gul – Mumbai attacks, 911 “inside jobs”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/07/fzgps.01.html
Trusting chief spooks now, Macky?
“Debunking conspiracy theorists’ paranoid fantasies about Sept 11′:
(Holmgren d3eleted the article from his website, butit can still be seen here):
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2746
He may have a point….
Thanks Paul, that’s a great & funny article; wonder why the author deleted it from his website ?!
@ Macky October 23, 2017 at 20:07
I don’t know; it’s still up on Rense and probably other sites.
Interestingly, it hasn’t been ‘torn apart’ by the Dachshund attack dogs yet…
Far too many words for our canine friends ! 😀
Everything which involves at least two whisperers is a conspiracy.
Some things speak for themselves eg WTC 7 and then you have your hunch and yes fine to test and keep testing one’s hunch. Silly not to. Try the opposite too. Take the counter position, pretend that is your hunch and test away. Then once you’ve tried to undermine the opposing positions sit back and figure out which you prefer.
Good advice; I try to do that as a matter of course.
Tried it with Building 7 but nothing rings quite true. Chandler’s graph is more reminiscent of whiplash than free-fall, but it’s so fast.
Try plotting the descent curve of some known controlled demolitions. I’m pretty sure they come out at less then g, so maybe 2.25 seconds of Chandler’s smooth curve that actually exceeds g before dropping back again doesn’t mean quite whet the Truthers assume it does.
Confounded problem.
Could something have sent the transformer substation into saturation, and a huge magnetic field “pulled” the steel frame? I find it hard to accept that gravity resulted in that curve, explosives or not.
I’m probably trying too hard. Probably Chandler just borked his calibration.
Trying too hard and not hard enough. Shortly after TomK’s visit here, I popped over to Randi Educational Forums to see what TomK got up to over there. He was working with someone analysing videos of the collapses, plotting descent curves like Chandler did. I thought, good on him for putting the work in; despite the certainty with which he argued over here he was still double checking.
Their work was incomplete and they were hassling with sub-pixel rendering, so I let them get on with it. But by now probably loads more work has been done and I should just go and look at it.
If anyone is interested in a technical discussion, David Chandler participated in this one (so much for the claim that debate has been suppressed):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128194
Thanks Clark I will see if I can follow this.
I don’t expect this stay up long, partly because of its title, partly because of one of the links in the article. So I hope the moderator(s) will surprise me. It certainly comes close to my opinion which I have epressed many times.
https://blogfactory.co.uk/2017/07/31/russia-presents-evidence-against-us-uk-and-israel-as-being-the-actual-911-terrorist/
From John’s link:
– [a nuke] “Just large enough to melt the I beams of the central core of the building and drop them in place”
But watch the clips which form the backdrop to the A&E9/11″Truth” video of Peter Ketcham, because it has some of the best views of the core remnants anywhere. The cores stood longest. Therefore core destruction did not initiate the collapses.
PS: The cores were made of box columns, not I beams. The article doesn’t even get that right.
And this illustrates what I mean by “conspiracy theorists’ thinking”, which has nothing to do with whether the theory involves a conspiracy or not. The lack of critical thought is the hallmark of a “conspiracy theory”. Anyone can disprove the “cores destroyed by nukes” theory in an instant if they’ve watched the collapse videos closely. John even had an argument with me in which he accepted that a core remnant was visible after all the floor assemblies and perimeter had collapsed. He’s also linked to Judy Wood’s “Spire Turned to Dust” hoax video which also shows a core remnant. So he knows, at least twice over that the cores stood longest, but he still propagates material that contradicts his own knowledge, logic be damned!
“John even had an argument with me in which he accepted that a core remnant was visible after all the floor assemblies and perimeter had collapsed.”
It was just a small section of the core which was left behind. Explosives failure?
Oh, you back to explosives? You just posted a big revelation from
RussiaVeterans Today revealing a nuke. Never mind; doesn’t matter – not to conspiracy theorists, anyway.“Small section”? It was over half the height of the building!
And here again is how I recognise conspiracy theorists. If their theory contradicts known facts, they just try to fudge it, and none of the others ever care because they’re all doing the same too. Since they never clean out the bunk, their theories are full of bunk. And anyone who tries to help them debunk is “helping the gubmnt”.
Did not take you long to read that Clark and comment. Or did you just find something that fitted your mindset and thought you might make a contribution and ignore the rest of the article? Well it is people who support the official CIA version over this who would most likely have supported the official CIA version of Lockerbie ensuring that an innocent man would take the rap for a dirty tricks operation to murder Bernt Carlsson.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Private_Eye#Fragment_of_the_imagination.3F
John the official narrative was a bomb was involved, but for an alternative view suggest reading John Barry Smith, Independent Aircraft Accident Investigator, about Lockerbie.
Thanks Dave.
The Lockerbie deception has no bearing upon the Veterans Today article. You could say with equal validity that the Lockerbie deception suggests that Brian Haw was never camped in parliament Square all those years.
Yes, I just scanned the Veterans Today article. It looked implausible. As soon as it contradicted the known fact of the cores falling last, I dismissed it. That’s how critical thinking works. It’s how to sift the wheat from the chaff, how to avoid being deceived.
The Lockerbie cover-up may appeal to Craig as its still a live legal issue in Scotland with a marathon Justice for Megrahi petition still being considered by the Justice Committee at Holyrood.
This is from one of your favourite sites I believe.
“Cross-Bracing
Construction photographs show that the core columns were connected to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep. The debris photograph below shows what appears to be one of the smaller core columns surrounded by perpendicular I-beams approximately three feet deep. In addition, the tops of core structures were further connected by the sloping beams of the hat truss structures.”
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
While you are on the site you might take a look at the section on NORAD which is the US air defence system protecting the United States and ask yourself why standard operating procedures were suspended on 9/11.
John, I don’t know why NORAD didn’t follow procedure. None of us do because evidence was destroyed.
What’s your point? The authorities propagated lies, so it’s best if we do too? The authorities are known to have told certain lies, so to find truth we have to invert everything they’ve said, and insist upon it? The authorities told certain lies, so any random website that contradicts them must be valid?
Approval of that sort of thinking is how I recognise conspiracy theorists.
“evidence was destroyed.”
Everwhere I look re: 9/11 I see black holes. And you admit that the “authorities are known to have told certain lies” – although I note how you are always fudging the issue with that “certain”. The authorites have told vast lies (Iraq). They have destroyed evidence. And yet the moment SOME theories are put forward they are viciously torn apart as mad, stupid and all that inflated pathological invective that suggests deep seated panic or anxiety.
George, yet again, it’s not the theories, it’s the lack of reasoning and the dishonesty which is used to promote them.
If I was offered good evidence for explosive destruction of the Twin Towers, I would accept it. But instead I’m offered, in vast quantities, lies and fake physics.
@ John Goss October 23, 2017 at 22:23
There is a heck of a lot of info in that link, and other links it contains.
Here is an important one. Right on the first page of the pdf, there is a picture of ‘Ground Zero’ showing what certainly looks like the result of a nuke – if not, what the heck caused that shape? Though I don’t agree that use of a mini-nuke invalidates use of nanothermate/ite.
Just put the following into the search engine, and choose the first option:
‘9/11 an irrefutable nuclear event, 42,000 deaths and counting’.
Here’s another important link:
‘They Lied About Everything That Ever Mattered: Evidence of The Media’s War on America’:
http://impiousdigest.com/executing-parallels/#stein
Actually here is the picture:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%E2%80%9CWhen+the+report+was+never+made+public,+the+team+released+the+highly+classified+photographs+depicting+the+huge+nuclear+crater+with+swirls+of+melted+granite.%E2%80%9C&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE3ufpsIjXAhVHDMAKHbvZACAQ7AkIPQ&biw=1600&bih=769#imgrc=HulNLUAwSFRaoM:
Clark. you are the conspiracy theorist par excellence on here, inventing ever wackier theories about how the laws of physics conspired on 9/11 to behave entirely differently to their normal behaviour, not witnessed before or since. Your physics is of the science fiction variety rather than the rigorous mathematical discipline which it is, and since you are unable to produce a meaningful calculation if your life depended on it, your views do not have much support, except from a small number of complete science ignoramuses.
This, from Nikko, who had to be dragged kicking and screaming (by me) before admitting that Judy Wood’s BBE contradicts Newton.
This is how I recognise conspiracy theorists. They insist upon stuff that contradicts firmly established facts.
Have you looked in the mirror?
What has Clark said which contradicts firmly established facts? It would be nice if you could be specific.
Ah Glenn, there you are ! Just a gentle reminder that I didn’t get a reply to this:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-121/#comment-702931
Maybe a little picture can help you start your answer:
https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/question15c.jpg
Thanks Macky. I’m still not convinced either way, as I mentioned to you on the weekend – this is not something that makes me popular in either camp, but then I don’t post here in order to be popular. It’s just that some doubts have set in over what appeared to be a fairly obvious demolition job. I have to concede that it’s possible that it did just progressively collapse. It’s giving every impression of a controlled demolition, but there’s little evidence that this did take place. Sorry that’s not a better answer, it’s all I have time for now.
George, yes. I question myself every day. I am human, same as you, same as Larry Silverstein, same as Craig Murray.
Today, I’m considering suicide. Maybe the only worthwhile course of action is to go to Parliament Square and stay there, and argue and campaign against war, until I die, like Brian Haw did. But I am not strong enough, I am too selfish. I would rather not face the discomfort.
I do not even know if it would be right for me to want to live. People living their normal lives, doing their jobs, buying what they need; these normal activities seem to be destroying the ecosystem. Maybe human life is inherently destructive. But I have no right to wish the deaths of my equals, so maybe the best I could do would be to end my own life. Maybe that’s the best contribution I could make.
But I do not know if it would be right for me to kill myself, either. People close to me killed themselves, and it hurt me very deeply. It seems wrong to inflict that on others. But maybe I am mistaken about that. Certainly, several commenters on this thread seem of the opinion that I degrade the world, and that I might be serving an evil purpose, or that I’m evil to the depths of my soul. Maybe they are right. I do not know.
I just don’t know, George. I cannot make life, none of us can, so maybe my life is not really mine to take. I just don’t know. I hope it stops soon.
Clark: I don’t pretend to understand all this argument about 9/11. But I do know that you take an awful lot of stick on here, and you’re still standing. It’s not easy to defend your views against three or four people simultaneously, as I know from experience, and you do it over and over. I really don’t feel qualified to comment on who is right – but your capabilities are remarkable. I would much prefer you to stay on the planet. I guess you know what 116 123 is. I have made use of it myself. Also please try this:
https://www.metanoia.org/suicide/
Best, John
Macky, the caption on the graphic you linked is misleading, and the answer is quite simple.
The falling section destroys the highest floor assembly of the standing section and, now decoupled from the supporting frame, its material adds to that of the destructive falling mass. So the next standing floor assembly down has even more falling mass impact upon it, and the process repeats over and over, until the much greater resistance of the ground is encountered. This process is called progressive collapse, for obvious reasons.
The caption is misleading because most of the structure was not squashed, but broken apart. This can be confirmed by examination of the photographs of the aftermath.
John Spencer-Davis, thank you, and Best wishes.
George, I too would like to know what firmly established facts I have contradicted, so that I may correct myself.
@Glenn, thanks for that reply; You state that you’re not convinced either way, but have you don’t been ridiculing others for their belief that the Towers came down because of control demolition, or it just my mistake impression ? At least you acknowledge that they give “every impression of a controlled demolition”, but you state that there is no evidence, so I wonder what you make of the many accounts of people hearing “bombs going off” or “explosions” far below from where the aircraft are said to have hit ?
Apart from the question of how the Towers came down, do you think it was an “inside job”, or it was just “allowed to happen” ? (It must be one or the other as I think you agreed that there is clear evidence for foreknowledge.)
“Ridicule”, Macky? As in “supporting the official narrative due to an infantile need to trust your leaders” or “dupes for the CIA”? Or is some ridicule more equal than others?
Clark, sorry that you are feeling down. Remember when we are arguing about some detail, as regards the greater picture we are on the same side.
Nicco, many, many thanks for that.
This, from Nikko, who had to be dragged kicking and screaming (by me) before admitting that Judy Wood’s BBE contradicts Newton.
Not quite Clark. If you understood science or debated honestly, you would have written that my position was that Woods example is unrealistic but in the context of proving that something could not have happened is perfectly valid and in no way goes against Newton.
Do you claim that Wood’s description is consistent with Newton’s laws?
‘We Need Millions of People to
Learn about the Bobby McIlvaine Act
Help Raise $5,000 to Produce the Video that Will Do Just That!’:
http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?e=%5BUNIQID%5D&u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=74da35aaff
‘Professor Hulsey’s Interim Report Undercuts NIST WTC 7 Study Thermal Expansion Shown to Push Opposite Direction From NIST’:
https://www.911tap.org/557-news-releases/700-professor-hulsey-s-interim-report-undercuts-nist-wtc-7-study
Something for the technical buffs to get their teeth into…
I had a surprise visit last night at about twelve o’clock. An acquaintance’s son arrived with a young woman he is friends with. We all had a very interesting chat. It was nice to see them.
My friend’s son has been doing media studies; he’s been learning to make films. The young woman writes and does photography, and she told me that today an article of hers should be published in the Guardian.
She says the Guardian is not as good as it used to be. She says it’s quite a confusing place to work, somewhat disorganised; when she has asked for advice others say that no one really knows what’s going on there.
But they do pay her. Not much, just the “London living wage”, but they’re insistent upon paying for work, they will not tolerate unpaid internship.
Probably, that I even know such a person will serve as further proof of the evil some of you seem to suspect me of.
I haven’t read the article yet, and I think it would be unwise of me to reveal which article it is.
I have had two friends at the BBC. One a technician, the other a video editor. Both of them kind, humorous, intelligent people.
But on this thread that just shows how much closer to evil I am than the Truthers. I can feel how much I am hated here, and if Kempe were to arrive, the hatred would be openly expressed and shared; revelled in.
Hatred of people is love of the peoples. War is peace. Rumour is fact.
Liars. Most Truthers are liars, and choose to propagate and promote lies. That is one of the conclusions I have become convinced of on this thread. It is something I had read at other websites, but I did not accept it. But I do now, because the Truthers on this thread have demonstrated it absolutely conclusively.
To a lesser extent, the criticism found elsewhere that the 9/11 Truth movement harbours anti-Semitism has also been confirmed. It was something I’d read but did not accept, but I have seen it here, and I have seen blind eyes turned, at the very least.
Contempt for “Muslims” is also a characteristic; phrases like “a bearded man in a cave” are contemptuous. But this should not surprise me because bigotry is bigotry, no matter which way it happens to be directed.
If these are the values you wish to display to people such as myself, carry on just as you are. What can I say? Only that, on balance in light of my findings, it is better that the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” remains as marginalised as possible. I doubt you will believe me what I say that that saddens me and corrodes my hope for humanity.
To those that may be concerned, it’s not the first time Clark has announced he’s thinking about committing suicide; this is very the main reason why I try to avoid engaging with him, and since he can’t stop posting here, it’s probably best that only those who agree with him, actually do engage him.
Yes, Macky. You may have noticed that there’s almost an epidemic of suicide. It is reported in the dreaded “MSM” of which you are so scathing and dismissive.
If you could stick to the moderation rules it would help a little, but whenever the illogic of your arguments is demonstrated, you turn to personal denigration, which I find damaging to my emotional state.
Indeed, you’ve just done it again:
– “…and since he can’t stop posting here”
…simultaneously expressing your desire to drive away dissenting voices, and characterising me as an obsessive.
Two things draw me back, things deeply personal to me. Religious indoctrination, of which I was a victim, and abuse of truth and logical reasoning, especially physics, which served as my life-line out out of religious indoctrination.
Illogic and fake physics requires no further elaboration; I counter them constantly. Religious indoctrination has two aspects relevant to this thread.
The corruption of Islam by the action of “our” monarchical allies in the Middle East; the consensus among the conspiracy theorists on this thread is to evade examination of this at all costs, and to concoct fabulous conspiracy theories to pretend that it has no effect in Europe or the USA.
The other is conspirology itself. It is highly reminiscent of a cult religion, employing very similar techniques to marshal the belief system of the flock while driving away or discrediting all logical challenge. For instance in the Jehovah’s Witlesses, evolutionary theory is derided as “the work of the Devil”, while here on this thread it is normal to deride critics of conspirology as “agents of the conspiracy” or “dupes supporting the CIA / official narrative”.
The similarities are striking to someone of my experience; does it surprise you that I oppose it?
Not the first time Clark’s announced he’s thinking about committing suicide ? I suspect it’s another one of his slippery rhetorical tricks. Still, it’s better to better to be on the safe side. If he’s so fragile, it’s better to stay away.
Sorry about the profusion of betters in that last post. But you can’t get enough betters.
No George. It is better to engage me honestly, in accordance with Craig’s well thought out moderation rules.
You insinuated that I don’t examine myself. I replied with my self-examination. You accused me of contradicting facts and I asked for examples so I can correct the matter. You have remained silent upon that point.
And far from remaining “on the safe side”, you accused me of “slippery rhetorical tricks”.
And all this to protect the unscientific, irrational Twin Tower demolition theory! You KNOW where I stand on war, on Israel, on Neoconservatism. I haven’t the slightest shyness about expressing my opinions about these.
As if Twin Tower demolition theory were some pivotal point. It isn’t; just check the history of this century! It didn’t even serve the purpose of devastating Iraq; they had to concoct illusory weapons of mass destruction for that. And 9/11 played no part in the false justification for turning Lybia into a terrorist breeding ground; none at all.
Think!
I understand your desire to fight. But you have to learn how to identify appropriate targets before you can even take aim.
@George, a pity if you feel that you can’t discuss 911 here because of one individual; simply ignore.
Macky, are you trying to marginalise me? Discussion is fine by me, but abiding by the moderation rules (which you so often transgress) will do much to keep the debate open to all commenters, including the less aggressive ones.
Still, you have previously spoken against civility in political debate. How such an approach is meant to encourage the progression towards peace seems obscure to me; care to explain?
George: “ I suspect it’s another one of his slippery rhetorical tricks. ”
That tells me all I need to know about you, George.
People can change, Glenn; they can choose.
‘John Brennan’s Police State USA’: http://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/10/21/john-brennans-police-state-usa/
‘Did the United States warn Russia to stay out of Syria?
Yes, they did.
Did they tell the Russians that if they joined the war against ISIS and helped Bashar al Assad the US would make them pay a heavy price?
Yes.
Did US agents and diplomats warn their Russian counterparts that Russian troops would “come home in body bags” and that the western media would launch a propaganda campaign against them?
Yes, again…..’
US-style ‘Diplomacy’.
Conspiracy theory can be deployed against Russia, too:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/06/the-ugly-underbelly-of-russia-gate/
Clark said: “As soon as it contradicted the known fact of the cores falling last, I dismissed it. That’s how critical thinking works. It’s how to sift the wheat from the chaff, how to avoid being deceived.”
Critical thinkers read the whole article. Critical thinkers do not dismiss the experiments of Jonathan H Cole without being able to engineer some critically thought out experiments which might disprove his work. “If it does not agree with experiment, it is wrong.” The only offering that you could make in an attempt to prove Cole wrong was that it must be a matter of scale. Which is utter nonsense.
Sorry to learn you are feeling low and hope you will soon be feeling better. That does not mean I can support any of your way out unscientific metaphysics. Sorry.
John, having considered the matter for some time, I think I may be ready to start considering models, working to establish limiting cases, and determining whether a collapse would accelerate or decelerate.
However, it will be very difficult for me to work in such a hostile environment as this. I expect people to interrupt, deny my ability, sidetrack, start hinting I’m some sort of agent, anything basically – especially if any of the models start to look as if progressive collapse could occur.
There is also the matter of money. I can’t afford to buy a lot of materials just to see if I can break them. However, it would also be possible to proceed with some thought experiments.
But you could perhaps make a start; I have some suggestions you could follow.
But that raises another problem for me. I find it very hard to believe that you have an open mind about this. I don’t believe that you can entertain the possibility of collapse occurring, and I expect you’d abandon the project if it gives the slightest hint of indicating that collapse could be possible.
Clark, it is not about open minds, it is about what could actually happen. Steel structures welded and bolted together do not fall down into one another. We were taught as engineers that welds can be stronger than the actual metal they are joining if welded properly. I believe it is evident to all engineers that the twin towers and building 7 could not have fallen as they did. No engineer would put his or her reputation on the line trying to prove that fires from high up on a skyscraper could bring down all the stories below. No engineer has tried to model such a collapse except on computer by leaving out key design elements and only then achieved a computerised partial collapse. It cannot be done. Save your money.
John, we could use models to determine how rescaling affects the propensity of a structure to collapse. Are you willing to do that? If you are not, please say so clearly.
And PLEASE see my question below, regarding the time of emission of the dust clouds. PLEASE do not simply ignore it.
Sorry Clark, I have neither the time nor the money. I am happy with the Cole experiments. What I have done is create for you a simple proposed experiment you can try for yourself at very little expense. You can get aluminium weld quit cheaply and do not need any welding equipment. I simply haven’t got time.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6328914859144683520/
John, you’ve been posting comments here for years. At the very least you could have answered about the time of emission of the dust clouds, below; that would take only a few minutes to review some videos and post a reply.
It seems to me that you’re being evasive, but I would rather that you prove me wrong.
If the project did get past the thought experiment stage, I have a stroboscope and an old 35mm still camera, and 35mm film is still available at a reasonable cost.
What we certainly could do is prove whether simply rescaling a structure affects the possibility of its collapse or not.
And in doing so, we would have determined the direction of the effect, ie. whether scaling down increases or decreases the structure’s propensity to collapse, or leaves it unchanged. I’ll place my bet now if you like; so long as we don’t change g (which in practice we can’t anyway), scaling down decreases the propensity to collapse.
Think of the model railways or Scalextric racing cars we had when we were kids. We’d run them too fast and they’d fly off the track, and nine times out of ten we’d just pick them up, put them back and carry on as if nothing had happened.
And if they’d been the real thing they’d have smashed to bits every time. In a train wreck they could be clearing the site for weeks.
See, when we rescale, we can rescale the structure, but we can’t rescale the overall system. We can rescale the columns, the floors, the storey interval, but we can’t rescale the molecular distances, the sizes of the atoms, the gravitational field. We can rescale the building, but we can’t rescale its materials or the gravitational environment it is in.
Why would gravity drive the collapse when there was nothing above the collapse to drive it? It was collapsing, actually disintegrating into dust, evenly all the way down, in seconds, with no help from gravity. The reason Clark persists with such nonsense is to keep the debate in a ‘twilight zone’ to forestall the next question and debate of who was responsible and explains why when that’s raised, the next step, he asks for comments to be deleted.
My reply is here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-122/#comment-703686
Here is my reply:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-122/#comment-703686
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-122/#comment-703686
The above links to my reply.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-122/#comment-703686
I am attempting to preserve the continuity of the debate.
Dave, please be honest. I have consistently asked that comments be PRESERVED. MODS, please PRESERVE Dave’s comment.
Dave, I had to ask that because your comment “impugns motive”, and thus would be removed under the moderation rules:
– “Fair Play. Play the ball, not the man. Address arguments, not people. Do not impugn the motives of others, including me. No taunting”
You have accused me of “nonsense”, and of manoeuvring the conversation to protect murders. You have played the man, not the ball.
– – – – –
The weight of “dust” would be equal to the weight of material it was pulverised from. That’s basic physics; it’s the law of conservation of mass. But if you watch the videos carefully, you will see that the enormous dust clouds were ejected horizontally near ground level as the collapses terminated, NOT “evenly all the way down” as you put it.
Please, would other commenters please confirm or deny that the major dust clouds were emitted as the collapses terminated?
“The weight of “dust” would be equal to the weight of material it was pulverised from. That’s basic physics; it’s the law of conservation of mass.”
Your understanding Clark is only partial. It was Einstein I believe who first showed the relationship between mass and energy with the formula:
E = mc squared.
With nuclear fission mass is converted to energy so the loss of mass in the newly-formed lighter atoms changes into energy giving an energy equivalent to what is lost in mass. So the total mass of all the new atoms created would be less than the original mass.
This is why in the article you commented on without reading it is worth noting what the author(s) wrote:
“The primary purpose of the nuclear weapon used on 911 was to produce a massive Gamma ray / neutron flux that would vaporize about 150 to 300 feet of 6 inch thick steal I-beams that constituted the central core of the WTC buildings. This created a free fall event as seen on TV that day. (Editor’s note: Critical information here.)
The flash would be hidden from sight due to the underground detonation. Most of the light was in the non-visible light spectrum any way. Over pressure would be reduced to 6 psi due to the blast traveling up the central core and neutron radiation vaporizing the TV antenna at the top of the building as see on TV.
The fallout would be mainly vaporized concrete cement and iron oxide. This is why after 911 they told everyone on TV that the beta radiation burns that people were getting were due to the caustic cement dust and not due to the radiation effects from the radioactive cement fallout.”
However I am not a nuclear physicist and cannot say whether that is or could be true or not. I know you argued with it before by saying there were no I-beams but do you still argue with its logic if a nuclear weapon was used? Are you a nuclear physicist? If not, and I suspect not, can you get the support of a nuclear physicist should you question it.
Even if the analysis is wrong it is a digression as to whether the twin towers could have fallen straight down through the path of greatest resistance. Nonetheless I have tried to give you an answer. But like I say I have no time especially for digressions.
Finally you have made a basic schoolboy error of equating mass and weight. They are connected but different. This could help.
http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/difference-between-mass-and-weight.php
Have a look at the beer-cans and see if you can devise a collapsable model the way the twin towers collapsed. I’m off for a bike ride.
John, you persist in denigrating me. It is most unpleasant.
As you should have guessed, I used two common simplifications. I am not ignorant of the conservation of mass-energy. Hardly anyone is ignorant of Einstein’s famous equation. I just used the standard simplification, as used in school physics and throughout mechanical engineering. Similarly I substituted “weight” for “mass” for simplicity’s sake; I assumed that Dave is non-technical as, apparently, did you.
The nuke story is a non-starter. The only survivors to emerge from the collapses of the Twin Towers were in the stairwells, which were in the cores, therefore the cores were not irradiated with a gamma flash. You’re proposing a gamma and neutron flash that can vaporise steel but somehow leaves human tissue unaffected? Do you take your audience for simpletons?
The cores were also seen to fall last, so it couldn’t have been core vaporisation that caused the colapses.
– “This created a free fall event as seen on TV that day. (Editor’s note: Critical information here.)”
Indeed there is critical information there. The videos show that the collapses proceeded at well under free fall; Chandler measured the initial drop at less than two thirds of g. So the critical information appears to be that the article is dishonest, a hoax.
Pretty much every assertion I make on this thread gets challenged (usually ineffectually) by someone.
But you’re happy to see a fellow demolition theorist propagate disinformation. You behave like members of a cult.
“John, you persist in denigrating me. It is most unpleasant.”
Yes, I thought afterwards that the comment seemed a bit harsh. I know you are not stupid Clark. I apologise. Perhaps though you will think of the supercilious way you talk down to others on the thread, which also is not good for their morale.
As to a joint effort at creating a model that collapses like the twin towers and building 7 I really do not have the time. I am working on another project and what’s more I am happy with the Cole experiments. They are not perfect but demonstrate opposite and equal actions and reactions.
Please take a look at the cans to see why it is so much easier to collapse a building any way but straight down from impact..
John, thank you.
I do not use “conspiracy theorists” to denigrate, but I need some term for the cult-like behaviour that goes on on this thread. That is the widely used term, and as I have repeated, over and over, I KNOW it is also misused to discredit people when another party finds their message embarrassing.
The issue of Twin Tower demolition theory is fracturing the Left and fracturing the support for the Palestinians. Conspiracy theorists disrupt Chomsky’s lectures and panels chaired by Amy Goodman, for instance, calling them “Left gatekeepers”. It’s making us all look like loonies, because, as Chomsky points out, there is hardly any academic or professional support for it. The reasoning I present on this thread is the SAME reasoning for which the physics and engineering communities have rejected Twin Tower demolition theory; it is NOT a vast conspiracy controlling academia, the theory is just wrong.
– “…and see if you can devise a collapsable model the way the twin towers collapsed. I’m off for a bike ride”
Are you up for working with models? I already offered, but you have to promise to work collaboratively.
And John Goss, you again evaded the issue of the timing of dust production. Is it an inconvenient fact by any chance?
I did not evade anything. I do not know the answer. I have no time to research it.
No time? The collapses completed in under twenty seconds. You could watch ten clips in five minutes!
Whatever. Watch out for it next time you watch an A&E9/11 vid. The vast majority of the dust wells up at the end, not during collapse.
Chomsky on many subjects is a gatekeeper for officialdom including the JFK assassination. Here an academic, Barry Zwicker, who was very fond of Chomsky explains why he fell out of love over JFK and 9/11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU
You might be fond of Chomsky Clark but he does not take an academic approach to arguing 9/11 and what is more he is neither a physicist nor engineer. Must go.
Chomsky looks at the world as state entities acting and being acted upon.
In that way he’s kind of Newtonian.
Post Newton we should be looking at the more complex dynamics acting within these state entities and across state entities.
Neither Chomsky nor Herman want to deal with that, is the gatekeeping argument, I believe. Herman has been quoted as much, in a don’t go there kinda way. Not sure what Chomsky has said about this but I think he has said that he and Herman are not one and the same.
But yeah, as the current world order is breaking down and being reformed, we probably need to address the more complex relations that exist both within and without states entities.
Dave, please be honest. I have consistently asked that comments be PRESERVED. MODS, please PRESERVE Dave’s comment.
Dave, I had to ask that because your comment “impugns motive”, and thus would be removed under the moderation rules:
– “Fair Play. Play the ball, not the man. Address arguments, not people. Do not impugn the motives of others, including me. No taunting”
You have accused me of “nonsense”, and of manoeuvring the conversation to protect murders. You have played the man, not the ball.
– – – – –
The weight of “dust” would be equal to the weight of material it was pulverised from. That’s basic physics; it’s the law of conservation of mass. But if you watch the videos carefully, you will see that the enormous dust clouds were ejected horizontally near ground level as the collapses terminated, NOT “evenly all the way down” as you put it.
Please, would other commenters please confirm or deny that the major dust clouds were emitted as the collapses terminated?
Can we sort out this one simple point before we move on and the “forum slides”?
WHEN was the dust emitted?
There should be no difficulty coming to agreement on this, since it is a simple fact, NOT a matter of opinion. If an argument requires that FACTS be misrepresented, it cannot be in accordance with:
TRUTH, Justice, Peace.
911 isn’t a physics issue.
It’s a political issue.
You need to be looking at the broader political picture, rather than concentrating on the physics of the event.
Well said, Geordie Bordie.