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).
angri
Don’t pull the psycho-analytic bull.That Freudian crock of unscientific horseshit worked just like the Frankfurt hocus pocus re-the “Authoritarian Personality” as means to pathologize cohesive resistance to elite Jewish subversion and supremacism.
Such resistance comes as a natural consequence of resource competition in which Jewish community cohesion and high investment parenting have afforded that group enormous advantages over the individualist,fragmented low investment parenting now endemic as a result of “sexual liberation” and anti-authority Franfurt/psychoanalytic cultural engineering over decades in the West.
Pathologizing people’s growing awareness of the existence over a century of a deeply ethnocentric,ethnic networking-adept,endogamous,highly intelligent and wealthy Jewish elite is less likely to work these days.
Ownership of the means of cultural production gives the elite you defend decided advantages in the mainstream realm but they’ve left you to fight their corner here on the net with nothing but a flock of budgerigars!
Not working,dude!
As an elite,the Jews have wielded power vastly disproportionate to their numbers so that anti-Jewish attitudes and behaviour are odds-on phenomena when Jewish power conflicts with the interests of the vast majority.
The various themes of modern anti-semitism come down to the Jewish role as a hostile elite with attitudes nad behaviour that are in conflict with the interests of others:economic domination in parts of eastern and central Europe prior to WW2;cultural subversion via the Jewish role in the media and intellectual life;and in the context of 9/11 in particular dual loyalty because of Jewish sympathies with foreign Jews,especially Israel since 1948.
The history of Jews as a hostile elite in the Soviet Union when that country became the most murderous regime in European history decidedly was not in the interests of the 30m victims of famine and gulag.
If saying that some resistance to these forms of elite behaviour is only natural provides legitimacy for anti-semitism I would counter by saying that Zionism provides intellectual legitimacy to the dispossession of the Palestinians and all the horrors that go with that primal evil.
Now go and clean up the droppings you and your budgie friends left in the cage last night!
“angri
Jewish subversion… Jewish community…wealthy Jewish elite …the Jews … anti-Jewish attitudes … Jewish power …
Jewish role as a hostile elite … the Jewish role in the media and intellectual life… dual loyalty because of Jewish sympathies with foreign Jews,especially Israel since 1948…. provides legitimacy for anti-semitism …Zionism…”
and on and on and on…
“What makes you think otherwise?”
I thought you might be able to see their IPs. If not then sorry about that.
Apostate,
if you have a message, it is getting obscured my your obvious aggression. Are you sure that this is what you want?
Thanks, Clark. This thread, with a few notable exceptions, seems to have sunk into a rather dispiriting yet predictable quagmire of accusation and counter-accusation. The openly anti-Jewish posts (who seem constantly to complain about not being allowed to post) are utterly counter-productive and abhorrent to any rational discourse. Do the people who post this stuff actually know personally any Jewish people?
It is important to state that whilst one can, and should, expose and criticise the actions of the Israeli state especially towards the Palestinians and the inordinate leverage exerted by that state on US foreign policy in relation particularly to the Middle East, it is completely another matter – and, I would suggest, completely unacceptable – to proceed from the very different premise of visceral hatred for ‘Americans’ or ‘Jews’ or ‘Muslims’ or whatever, and consequently to view the sum total of reality through that distorting prism.
Such input simply has the effect of conflating criticism of empire with rabid racism. I think that everyone who wants to has probably expressed everything there is to express about ‘9/11’ and there are a surfeit of links on the web for people to go exploring should they wish to do so, and so perhaps like other threads, it will peter out. Maybe I too ought to avoid feeding it! Best wishes.
Suhayl Saadi,
again, I thoroughy agree. Best wishes to you, too.
MJ, as to your new video – the page below is what’s called a thorough debunking. However; I’m not under any illusion that you’ll stop saying such silliness. This is a religion to you.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
Also, the investigation of the WTC remains was one of the most involved investigations in history.
The idiot Jesse Ventura now has a conspiracy show in the U.S. Apparently there’s still a significant amount of steel out at JFK airport for the purpose of study. It’s in a warehouse, apparently protected by – get this – a locked door!
The upshot is that that conspiracy freak pretended that he wasn’t allowed access, as there was video showing him peering into the window, without being allowed to get through the door. But get this – the same week, a real newsman did a report on the WTC wreckage, and he toured the facility with cameras. Turns out there was really nothing to hide behind that one locked door with a window.
Who do you believe?
this is what happens when truthers get confronted with questions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvKgj_EjUDw
“The 9/11 Post”…
http://tinyurl.com/y9gcyvb
George,
I did my best to avoid such a scenario, but to no avail. Thanks for making me laugh.
“I did my best to avoid such a scenario, but to no avail. Thanks for making me laugh.” – Clark.
Likewise.
And see also http://xkcd.com/386/
“the investigation of the WTC remains was one of the most involved investigations in history”
Hampered somewhat by the hasty and illegal removal and sale of the evidence (I’m sure you meant to add).
The xkcd cartoon link there is me, sorry.
I need a “Remember to remember me” metabutton …
“Hampered somewhat by the hasty and illegal removal and sale of the evidence (I’m sure you meant to add).”
Evidence?
No?
Evidence, yes.
No, you have no evidence for your claim.
The material was investigated. Conclusions were made. The remains of people were searched for.
Truthers seem to think that the world owes them a favor – that ALL of the WTC material should be sitting on an island somewhere for them to investigate. That’s not how it works. But there’s plenty of steel at a warehouse at JFK airport. It’s behind a locked door. Either break into the door, or schedule an appointment.
“No, you have no evidence for your claim”
For goodness sake Larry, do your research. Over 80% of the steel was illegally removed, cut up and sold to the far east before investigators could look at it. Even the most blinkered and committed believers in the official account do not dispute this.
http://tinyurl.com/yfvgpk5
Again, where’s the photographic evidence of thermite?
Why would anyone want to do a demolition using thermite?
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photosoftorch-cutsteel
January 31, 2010
“9/11, Deep Events, and the Curtailment of U.S. Freedoms”
“A talk delivered to the New England Antiwar Conference, MIT, January 30, 2010.”…
http://tinyurl.com/yftnp7d
Larry,
why was the steel evidence taken away?
Why is there clear evidence of nanothermite in WTC dust – (not red paint! – that appears to yield high energy when exposed to a naked flame. Do you think it was planted?
Listen I have seen evidence of WTC steel columns that looked like swiss cheese (holes)
Can somebody find these images, I have forgotten the link.
Larry,
The images exist – are they fake?
“That was from Bill Manning”
What’s your point Larry? That Manning is lying? You’re clutching at straws. I picked that link pretty much at random. It’s well-established that the steel was removed and sold. It’s even in the link you provided:
“Nearby scrap recyclers have begun cutting, shearing, shredding and shipping the biggest volumes of metals they have ever faced. Recycling the steel and other metals could net a few tens of millions of dollars (NYT Oct. 9, 2001)”
“Again, where’s the photographic evidence of thermite?”
It’s in the nature of the collapses; the rivulets of steel dripping down the buildings pre-collapse; the molten steel beneath the rubble for weeks after.
It’s only a theory however. If the steel had been retained so investigators could analyse it, as was required by law, there’d be no need for theories.
Where’s the photographic evidence to support NIST’s theory, or FEMA’s now discredited theory?
There should be no need for theories by now. The steel would have told its own story. But it was destroyed. Get over it.
Larry,
it is Mark.
Apostate,
I tried your link which gave me a warning and the cert. was unsigned, when I allowed it, the site was unknown. Have you another link?
Larry,
you’re making much better comments than when you started. Disproving explosives / demolition really is your strong point. How long have you been doing this?
MJ,
I followed a link, oh, over a week ago, regarding uninteruptable power supplies in one of the towers; very convincing explanation for the molten metal seen streaming from the side of the building prior to collapse.
Molten metal beneath the rubble? I can’t explain this.
The best sites on 9/11 and most other topics are the ones that provide you with the research resources to explore for yourself.
Unless,like the vacuuous angri/Larry brigade you have an aversion for doing your own research check out the James Corbett’s Open Intelligence site.
James has done 7 podcasts on 9/11,all exhaustively documented.The most recent was:
http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode097_91109.mp3
At the very least you will come away from the broadcast with your appetite for real information thoroughly whetted.You will certainly realise there’s a world of difference between the corporate media’s drip-fed disinformation and what you can discover yourself from following the right leads.
James’s documenation trail for this one episode ranges from Colleen Rowley who blew the whistle on the PTech software that may have been used to plan,coordinate and perpetrate the 9/11 attacks and was allowed by its creators to fall into the hands of terror financiers to William Bergman’s Fed insider expose of the 9/11 money trail.This latter of course makes it abundantly clear that major financial players had foreknowledge of the coming attacks and made sure they were in position to profit therefrom.
As has been previously stated the war-mongers have false-flag form over 100 years or so when it comes to igniting the fear,hatred and general emotive force for wars that otherwise would have been distinctly unpopular with the public.
That 9/11 falls into this category there is not one shred of doubt.
Many conspiracy theorists complain that the “controlled demolition” hypothesis wasn’t tested. But the problem is that they haven’t given a coherent account of this controlled demolition that can’t be refuted.
NIST, for example, explain why they didn’t test for a controlled demolition.
There are no sounds of explosives on the video evidence that exist.
The steel didn’t show any signs of being blasted by explosives. (Apparently an explosive signature is very distinctive according to explosives experts). So even if much of the beams were shipped off to China blackened and smouldering like exploded cigars in a Bugs Bunny cartoon you’d have to account for why the Chinese didn’t notice.
There were no explosive-related injuries reported and then there are also the objections made by Frazer earlier.
Here’s also the account of talk by explosives expert Ron Craig who disputes the explosive controlled demolition hypothesis. The point is that if the Truthers can’t refute each of these points then their hypothesis is not even worth testing as it is a weaker explanation for the collapse of the towers than the NIST report.
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/03/911-truthers-meet-their-waterloo-ron.html
So, in order to escape from the fact that no signatures of explosives exist they have to rely on thermite (or one of its variants).
Again, this hypothesis is completely impllausible given the fact that thermite isn’t used in controlled demolitions. If it is not used to do this then this destroys one of their claims to skepticism which is something along the lines of “no-steel-framed building of approximately 110-stories has ever fallen down after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel and then fallen down and yet two came down on the same day!”
The reason for “skepticism” is absurd. Thermite, or thermate, or nanothermite or whatever has never been used for such a purpose either.
Ron Craig also delves into why thermite is unlikely given its lack of chemical signature in the same link I provided.
Also there are examples which refute the idea that steel-framed buildings can collapse due to fire.
All in all, there is really nothing left of the Truthers claim that a controlled demolition hypothesis need to be taken seriously and that is why NIST didn’t test for it.
Angrysoba,
were you replying to someone? No one else had posted anything for hours… Especially not about that.
Ok, to sum up, it’s been conclusively proven on this thread that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. Thanks to all for participating and keeping it mostly civil. I salute you!
Seconded!