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).
Once again tungsten and the crew of clowns don’t cite anything specific.
You children – it’s not enough to REALLY REALLY want 911 to be an inside job. You have to come up with some proof.
Can anyone tell me why the superduperthermite did not ignite when the planes struck the buildings?
“It’s thanks to Larry,angrisoba et al that everybody now knows that 9/11 was indeed an inside job!”
Do I really need to point this out again? EVEN THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT WANTS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU IDIOTS.
“It’s thanks to Larry,angrisoba et al that everybody now knows that 9/11 was indeed an inside job!”
Probably best not to get too triumphant yet, still lots of work to be done. One of the distinguishing features of 911 is the absence of key evidence, either missing or destroyed and, before a proper independent inquiry, neither side can claim conclusive victory.
Although the angrylarrys are clearly most comfortable handing out insults than discussing evidence, they do sometimes make a fair point. Larry’s comment for instance that “I’m still wondering how, when the planes hit the Towers, the explosives / incendiaries / superduperthermite didn’t immediately go off” is a reasonable one.
The Naudet Brothers have been mentioned and their clip of AA11 hitting WTC1 – ‘The Fireman’s Video’ – is worth looking at it some detail. It is full of clues. It appears to show a small plane with no engines on its wings, just like all the eyewitnesses said. The impact creates a much smaller fireball than did the second plane, which is interesting given that both planes should have had roughly the same amount of fuel on board. And it clearly shows a separate explosion taking place in the adjacent wall of the building, which might lead one to speculate that there were pre-planted explosives to create some of the impact damage. Look out for the anomalous pattern of mini explosions as the plane strikes and the interesting flash just prior to impact.
It’s really worth checking out, particularly in slow motion.
“It appears to show a small plane with no engines on its wings, just like all the eyewitnesses said.”
No, not all the eyewitnesses said that. Maybe 3 did. Who knows. It certainly wasn’t all.
MJ, so you know, if you start pushing that story, you start violating truther pseudo-orthodoxy, and you might not be welcomed at their sparsely populated meetings.
“No, not all the eyewitnesses said that. Maybe 3 did”.
No eyewitnesses said they saw a passenger jet.
“if you start pushing that story, you start violating truther pseudo-orthodoxy”
I don’t care. I’m only interested in the evidence.
I try not to link to ‘truther’ sites but the following article is interesting because it is the only one that attempts an analysis of some other other aspects of the first plane:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer03.htm
anon – “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. –Galileo Galilei”
This appears to be more like a religion.
“Larry’s comment for instance that “I’m still wondering how, when the planes hit the Towers, the explosives / incendiaries / superduperthermite didn’t immediately go off” is a reasonable one.”
I dont think so, bombs arent neccessarily too sensitive (except when made to be), consider when aerial bombs fail to explode because they arent properly armed, despite impacting targets at 100s of mph.
Even if a plane where to have taken out a device or two in the crash area, with the lack of footage of the first strike and fireball spectacle of the second, how visible need it be?
“The Naudet Brothers have been mentioned and their clip of AA11 hitting WTC1 – ‘The Fireman’s Video’ ”
The problem with this evidence is it is blurred and compressed to hell. Its of some speculative interest to people openly reviewing the events, but can always be attacked as an example of “seeing what you want to see” by believers.
“No eyewitnesses said they saw a passenger jet.”
Do the other truthers hear this? Isn’t this an example of the crazy that you’ve let in to your big tent?
MJ, this is what the author of what you think is evidence also believes:
“… but I’ll tell you what I see. Immediately before the plane strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building’s fa?ade. This is the cause of that brief flash. The plane then begins to disappear neatly into this hole, leaving no wing impressions. Just before it disappears however it fires two more missiles from somewhere near its tail. One goes to the left, one to the right (and up a bit) and it is the blast holes from these three separate missiles that form the great gash across the building.”
Even by truther standards, this is crazy.
Larry, I repeat: no eyewitnesses said they saw a passenger jet.
I don’t think your quote is from the article I linked to. In the article I linked to his comments about FEMA’s diagrammatic rendition of the scar are spot on – you can test it yourself. Also what he says about the seismic records is interesting.
“The problem with this evidence is it is blurred and compressed to hell”
True, but the explosion in the adjacent wall is clear enough.
MJ, wrong; a friend of mine was standing on top of his brownstone in Brooklyn and saw the second plane – a passenger jet – fly in.
Does the photographic evidence not work for you?
“I don’t think your quote is from the article I linked to.”
Right, but the Spencer guy is a crazy person who believes that missiles shot from the plane. In fact, that’s one of his central beliefs.
No-one doubts the second plane, there are lots of pictures. I’m talking about AA11, the first plane.
“the Spencer guy is a crazy person who believes that missiles shot from the plane”
He may be wrong about that. I was inviting you to read another, more forensic, articles of his. His comments can be easily verified.
Here are some, among many, eyewitness accounts. Some don’t mention “passenger” plane, but that’s because the world is not out to prove or disprove your conspiracy within a conspiracy.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai
“His comments can be easily verified.”
Nope, it’s just a bunch of babble. Apparently this guy doesn’t even exist, let alone have any qualifications.
So let me get this straight:
1. The first plane WAS NOT a passenger plane;
2. The second plane WAS a passenger plane.
Why the hell would the Men in Black do it that way?
The Men wear white.
“Here are some, among many, eyewitness accounts”
Thanks for those Larry. I suppose I was referring to those eyewitnesses who were interviewed by TV/radio immediately after the event and before the official account was in circulation. None of these is quoted on your link, but they give a rather different picture. It seems that an extraordinary number of senior fire department officials were in the vicinity time, but were not interviewed.
You may recall that even General Myers acknowledged that the early reports were of a small plane.
“His comments can be easily verified.”
Of course they can. All you need is a copy of FEMA’s Building Performance report.
“apparently this guy doesn’t even exist”
The article must have written itself then. Either way it makes some important observations. The only qualification you need is to be able to count. Obviously FEMA didn’t make the grade.
Hell,Larry!
Yo’an Robinson,angri,and dat guy wid crabs still all makin’ complete arses yo’sels bout dat 911 ting?
You no Massa Sunstein tol’yawl yo makin’tings mighty far sight worser dan dey was before.All da people down here in Missouri know yo’makin’complete arses yoursel’
Issa only some debate you doggone got whipped in.Ebody know likes a Massa Sabre,Steelback,Freeborn and tungsten done made yawl look a bunch a fools.Yawl oughta juss cut yo’losses an jussa pack up an’come home now.Y’aint never spoke one word a sense bout thissa ting anyways.
Aint no folks down here in Missouri gon’tank ya fur sendin’their boys down that Iraq and dem otter places on backa load o’ol lies.Our boys jussa get their arses blown to bits for bunch a mean drug peddlers and bankers inna New York and Lundun!
Now you and angri an’ol’crab tell dem ‘spiricists yawl bout had nuff an’ yo gwine pack up now!
P.S. I’s still havin’ a fine time wid yer wife an’all.We both unstan if yo wanna carry on makin arse yo’sel!
“bombs arent neccessarily too sensitive (except when made to be”
crab: yes, true of bombs, which need detonators, but there is an issue with thermite, which needs only ignition.
George,
Thanks for that link. Another nail in the coffin of truth.
“February 21, 2006
U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 ?” In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents that were available for years, including some already published by the State Department and others photocopied years ago by private historians.
The restoration of classified status to more than 55,000 previously declassified pages began in 1999, when the Central Intelligence Agency and five other agencies objected to what they saw as a hasty release of sensitive information after a 1995 declassification order signed by President Bill Clinton. It accelerated after the Bush administration took office and especially after the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to archives records.”
And a commenter quotes from Deep Politics Quarterly:
“But heres the catch: if you are a historian/researcher and possess copies of the reclassified documents, even though you haven’t been told what they were (or to return them) you could find yourself in violation of federal statutes that prohibit individuals from being in possession of “secret” material. You could face Federal Felony charges for possession of secret documents that you obtained in a totally legal manner.”
This seems the appropriate place for this link;
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/02/02/who-was-that-well-dressed-man/
Wow – breaking news from 4 years ago!!!!! In those 4 years, has anyone faced a felony charge for possessing a reclassified document? That sorta helps defeat your claims of conspiracy. Own goal!!!!!
Jumpin Juniper!
Oh my gosh!! Larry nailed everyone!!!!
“George Galloway talks to this American 9/11 expert, who gives a bunch of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. Part 1-4 was originally broadcasted on 17th April 2009.”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78P6-LHfKo8
Ties up with previous link;
http://www.christopherketcham.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Final%20PDF%20of%20CounterPunch%20article%20re%20Israelis%2001-29-07.pdf
I don’t have time to listen to Galloway and a crazy American.
But just to note that Galloway doesn’t believe in the silliness of 911 conspiracy nutters.