The 9/11 Post 11807


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).


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 33 34 35 36 37 134
  • Larry from St. Louis

    I’ve come to the conclusion that you people are horribly deranged.

    Mark Golding brought up a story about bin Laden buzzing around the WTC prior to 911 – in a black helicopter! – and you people seem to believe that this is possible.

    God damn you’re hilarious!

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “Larry: the point is that there was no damage to the exterior of the building.”

    There was plenty. You refuse to believe it because you have chosen to remain manipulated.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    As to WTC 7, do you idiots believe yourselves to be more knowledgeable than the firefighters at the scene, who abandoned the building because of the damage and risk of collapse?

    Do you believe that the firefighters were part of the conspiracy?

  • MJ

    “Do you believe that the firefighters were part of the conspiracy?”

    I believe the firefighters left the building because they were told to. There were fires inside the building, started by dust falling on it according to your theory.

    You don’t think perhaps you’re the manipulated one, believing this ludicrous stuff, just because your government tells you?

  • Larry from St. Louis

    I rely on a number of sources of evidence – mostly non-government.

    On the other hand, you rely on mostly right-wing Americans and Holocaust deniers.

  • crab

    I believe what Marks friend reported ~might~ have been the result of theatrical stunt to add bullshit and confusion to the whole bullshit event.

    Or since i dont know her, she might just have made it up..

    It doesnt matter, like 400ft matters..

    So larry you finaly turned up some photos of damage -a little damage ~maybe 1 percent of a facade.

    It doesnt quite match up to your “fucking building fell on it” description does it?

    And now you can explain how perhaps a building which is ‘collapsing’ on itself, manages also to throw bits of itself sideways enough to seriously damage the structure of a building that is 400 feet away…

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    There is no doubt this is a ‘hairy’ thread that will at a glance prove too distasteful to some

    and many will turn away, diverting their eyes from the battlefield.

    I therefore ask you sincerely to look for the many ‘nuggets’of truth in vulgar relativism.

    What I mean can be seen as the reaction kindly noted by an astute ‘Apostate’ to the ‘Sonnenfeld’ observations.

    Here we note a critical area where we discern the ‘trap’ of our own human weaknesses that produces a response

    worthy of further investigation. Even a cursory look reveals a failure to produce a valid and sustained argument

    that one can believe in, instead we note an emotional outburst that reveals to us an essential place where one can ‘dig’ further and explore all the available information and more.

    I mention just one instance but that could be one of many, exponentially increasing as this thread gets longer.

    So, again I ask you kindly to omit the bile and attend to the reality that ‘apostate’ ‘juniper’

    and others have seen that might provide that gentle nudge one way or the other that crystallises beliefs on the events

    of that fateful day 11/9/2001.

  • MJ

    “And now you can explain how perhaps a building which is ‘collapsing’ on itself, manages also to throw bits of itself sideways enough to seriously damage the structure of a building that is 400 feet away…”

    I’m afraid the ‘debunking’ sites that Larry scuttles off to for comfort don’t address awkward questions like that. They prefer detailed close-ups of minimal damage and lots of speculative diagrams and ‘artists impressions’. Impressive stuff.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Take a look at the second picture at that link (“SW Corner Damage”).

    In any event, you conspiraloons will just continue to move the goalposts.

    I’ve presented you with plenty of evidence. You dismiss it without thinking through the issues.

    You were manipulated by one or two images of WTC 7 suddenly collapsing, and that fit into your worldview, so now you’re sticking with it.

    You have an unfalsifiable view.

    Thank heavens Craig Murray, while a bit of a nutter himself, is not enough of a nutter to believe any of this bullshit.

    And again, the 911 Truth Movement = failure. I dare you to show up at an anti-war rally with a truther sign.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “lots of speculative diagrams and ‘artists impressions'”

    Do you know how engineering works, you dumbass?

  • dreoilin

    “No, I didn’t link to that wikipedia article.”

    My mistake, it was Angrynoodle, on February 12.

    “I don’t plan on looking at it, but do you believe that people WOULD see black helicopters because bin Laden”

    I didn’t mention bin Laden. I was responding to you writing, “And on a black helicopter!” — as if “black helicopter” in itself proved something or other, which it doesn’t.

    “Do you know how engineering works, you dumbass?”

    You turn it on? hehe

    “Thank heavens Craig Murray, while a bit of a nutter himself, is not enough of a nutter to believe any of this bullshit.”

    That’s about the fifth time you’ve dragged in Craig. Why should his beliefs change the beliefs of the folk arguing here?

    “I dare you to show up at an anti-war rally with a truther sign.”

    That’s about the fifth time you’ve mentioned the anti-war movement. Why should what they believe change anyone’s mind here? And how do you know what all of the anti-war folk individually believe?

    You’re grasping at straws. It’s what you’ve been at since day one, in between screeches of bwahahaha. Not impressive, Larry.

    And since there were ~83 cameras around the Pentagon, could you give me a link to your best picture of a plane flying into the Pentagon please?

  • angrysoba

    “Oh Larry wot about ypur ‘angel dust’ from 4 different locations at G0 – it sure went poof! when somebody put a light to it! Bit like the stuff Guy Fawkes put in his barrels eh? Wot ’bout that big crater in 6WTC Larry – it wasn’t where a Boeing engine fell – Oh talking ’bout engines have you got any serial numbers from that big engine on the sidewalk? I need to look then up – got a link?”

    Burning buildings collapse and cause damage to nearby buildings. If they are very big and heavy they cause even more damage.

    Very simple.

    Also, no one said angel dust, which is slang for PCP. I said it was pixie dust because it has magical qualities despite being nothing of the sort.

    David Aaronovitch has a good expression for conspiracy theorists:

    “formulated by the politically defeated and taken up by the socially defeated.”

    Conspiracy theories are for losers, in other words.

  • Steelback

    Think Larry’s still looking for that picture of the “plane” hitting the Pentagon!

    In point of fact that hole in the building-the one that was way too small to have been caused by a plane impact- stands as a metaphor for the entire 911 official bullshit.The state-sanctioned account has this and several other glaring unaccountable great holes in it.

    Alternatively we could see the hole in the Pentagon as the vital exit route required by Mishpucka Zakheim who left a huge hole in the Defense budget.Indeed Rumsfeld had publically stated the day before 911 that they couldn’t account for trillions of dollars worth of the public money that had disappeared over the years on Zakheim’s watch.

    The video of Rumsfeld’s questioning by Cynthia McKinney before a senate committee is instructive in that like “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke before a similar “investigative committee” more recently Rumsfeld singularly failed to provide any answers to probing questions re-trillions of US taxpayers money.

    Millions of Americans are waking up to the breathtaking extent of government corruption as the populist pitchfork/Tea Party movements suggest but these movements are being infiltrated by neo-cons and elite agents who want to see them fail.

    The Truth movement has the same insidious enemies.As we have seen on this site these guys don’t amount to a hap’orth of beans.In fact,being so inept they bear witness to the level of desperation among the elites who resort to false-flag terror to control their populations.

    Another hole in the official fairy story-the disinfo team would have us believe-is the fact that the Pentagon was evidently left undefended hours after the planes had already hit the twin towers.Webster Tarpley has written extensively re-the numerous drills ongoing that day that account for this gaping hole in US defences that day.

    Tarpley it was who first uncovered the Gladio NATO-sposored terror network that used the infamous Red Brigades to inflict carnage on innocent civilians and politicians like Aldo Moro in the 1970s.

    In the abjectly ahistorical accounts peddled by the disinfo team here and in the corporate media no attention is given to these earlier decades when governments were so intimidated by their domestic populations that the recourse to domestic terrorism against their own people became an option.

    Those that studied this phenomenon of false-flag terror in earlier decades, like Gianfranco Sanguinetti and Guy Debord,agreed that as the perceived threat to them from their domestic populations intensified these elites found false-flag terror addictive and used it increasingly to disarm their opponents.

    These are ominous warnings from history we ignore at our peril.

  • Apostate

    Yo,Steel!

    Many thanks reminding me re-Tarpley.His book:911 Synthetic Terror:Made in the USA describes 911 as the Myth of the 21st Century.He notes the importance of Leo Strauss to the neo-con mindset and how Strauss had understood the need for “mobilizing myths” to bind the masses to the oligarchy that governed.

    Thus in the neo-con fin-de-siecle paper,”The New American Century” and all the Foundation elite think-tank propaganda for full-spectrum dominance we find among Strauss’s disciples a hunger for “some new Pearl Harbour” to catalyze US public opinion to support the agenda of permanent warfare that sustains the oligarchy.

    Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations” was another key ideological thread to this fin de siecle neo-con drive for permanent war.The need for an enemy image is a manifestation of the oligarchy’s awareness that their irrational impulse to dominate would not long survive the public scrutiny to which it would be subjected in peacetime.War provides the social cohesion on which elite domination depends to sustain it.

    These are clearly the ideological underpinnings of an elite group that would have no trouble whatever accommodating a crime on the scale of 911.The idea of instigating a spurious national emergency as means to remove all legal impediments to tyranny leads us back to the Reichstag Fire in 1933 with which 911 has accurately been compared.

    Follow the elite planning trail for 911 in sources like CFR-sponsored Foreign Affairs magazine.A paper co-written by neo-con,Philip Zelikow,in Nov-Dec 1998 called “Catastrophic Terrorism” speculated on an atrocity that would become a watershed in US history.Its peacetime impact would be great enough to put US security so much in doubt as to make putting the country on a permanent war footing a necessity.

    The impact of said atrocity would resemble that of the 1949 Soviet nuclear test allowing for a draconian drawdown of civil liberties including state detention,surveillance and state reecourse to use of deadly force against perceived enemies.

    Interestingly Zelikow presupposed the allegiance of the “state-media-nexus” for uniform dissemination of the propaganda that would sustain the mobilizing myth re-the provenance of the atrocity.

    Strauss’s belief in society needing to be run by an elite group of philosophers who lie and deceive the foolish populist masses,and who used politics,religion and the dissemination of myths to keep the population in clueless servitude would be our lot were we to heed the mythologies peddled by the Straussain disinfoteam here resident!

    Here’s to clueless servitude in St Louis!

  • MJ

    “I’ve presented you with plenty of evidence”

    You’ve presented evidence of some damage to the building prior to its collapse comprising one close-up photo, one heavily doctored photo and several speculative diagrams.

    It is unclear whether the damage was caused by falling debris or by the explosions heard inside WTC7 – prior to the collapse of WTC1 – by Emergency Coordinator Barry Jennings.

    “Burning buildings collapse and cause damage to nearby buildings. If they are very big and heavy they cause even more damage”.

    And if they’re 400 feet away and turn entirely to dust before they even hit the ground they cause little or no damage. This is a rather important point and needs an answer. You won’t find in the ‘debunking’ sites. They won’t go there. You’ll have to show you’re not manipulated and come up with something sensible off you’re own bat I’m afraid. Good luck.

    “avid Aaronovitch has a good expression for conspiracy theorists”

    Since Aaronovitch was an enthusiastic proponent of one of the most preposterous conspiracy theories of modern times – the one about Iraq having WMD – I feel we should take his words with a generous pinch of salt. The man is a buffoon.

  • tungsten

    Wasn’t Aaronabitch the guy who said if the eltes he’d listened to were proved wrong and Saddam turned out not to have WMD he would never believe anything they said again?

    I think he was.And was he true to his word? It seems not.

    UPDATE ON THE CORPORATE HACKS WHO SOLD US THE IRAQ WAR.

    The same goes for all these guys who sold the war too:

    Anne Applebaum on the Washington Post insisted that in the light of France and Germany’s failure to take Saddam’s WMD seriously they be expelled form the international community.She now spends all day propagandizing the danger to us should we make the fateful decision to leave Iran unmolested.

    There is also the need,according to Applebaum,to freeze Russia out as well should any new Cold War manifest.

    Con Coughlin couldn’t find Iraq on a map but his propaganda for a war to disarm Saddam did his career no harm at all.He went on to become Chief Foreign Editor at the Telegraph.

    Christopher Hitchens and Janet Daley propagandized us for war and are still regular pundits on the corporate media today.

    Likewise Andrew Roberts,Rothschild historian of royalty and the Empire, had a recent book endorsed by Dubya Bush.Not quite high academic affirmation but hey when you’ve been so wrong on Iraq Hell you might as well go the whole hog and get it signed by someone who took a leading role in the events you purport to be describing.

    Then there’s Richard Littlejohn formerly of the Sun but now frothing equally profusely on behalf of Israel in The Mail.

    Servile hacks aka.Rothschild pens who do elite bidding will not want for work until their readers demand better fare.

    And that’s not going to happen any time this side of Hell freezing over.

  • Apostate

    It just occurred to me-I think there’s a real danger we just laugh re-Larry,angri and the disinfo team.

    They’re doing the same as the corporate media propagandizing to get us behind the elite myths that are used to trigger wars.

    Can anyone doubt that scumbags like Larry and angri would have us go to war over manufactured incidents like the underwear or shoe bombers?

    911 was no different from any of these patently false-flag attacks.Immeasurably greater in scale but it came with exactly the same message from exactly the same people.

    Give in to assholes like the disinfo crew here and the elites whose bidding they do will walk all over us.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “one close-up photo, one heavily doctored photo and several speculative diagrams.”

    Of course you think it’s heavily doctored. If it were real, it would violate your religious beliefs and finally convince you that all these years you’ve been manipulated by right-wing Americans.

    What’s your evidence that it’s heavily doctored?

    And there you go again moving the goalposts.

    What do you demand? That an IMAX camera was stationed right beside WTC 7 for your benefit? But well all know that even if it had been, you’d still figure out a way to weasel out of the obvious conclusion that Building 7 suffered serious damage from that falling building.

    I really wish we could create a demonstration and have you stand 400 feet away. Or 600 feet away.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “And if they’re 400 feet away and turn entirely to dust before they even hit the ground they cause little or no damage. This is a rather important point and needs an answer. You won’t find in the ‘debunking’ sites. They won’t go there. You’ll have to show you’re not manipulated and come up with something sensible off you’re own bat I’m afraid. Good luck.”

    All answered here:

    http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

  • Steelback

    The doctrine that’s being peddled is the old one of Trotsky’s permanent revolution/war.

    Actually it was more the innovation and applied practice of one Alexander Helphand aka.Parvus.He was one of the more enigmatic figures you won’t read about in official history books.The vast sums of money and the influence Helphand had at his disposal made him indispensable to both the Young Turk and Bolshevik Revolutions.

    Warfare was deemed after long discussion by the Carnegie Endowment in 1908 to be their best bet for remodelling US society along lines they thought consonant with their elite agenda.To get the wars they wanted they sought control of the Defense Department.This was engineered via their Council of Learned Societies that oversees all appointments to the DOD to this day.

    http://www.larouchepub/other/2005/3237cheney-perm_war.htm

    Carnegie morphed into the CFR

  • dreoilin

    “since there were ~83 cameras around the Pentagon, could you give me a link to your best picture of a plane flying into the Pentagon please?”

    Posted by: dreoilin at February 16, 2010 7:33 AM

    Do you think you could rustle up an answer, Larry?

  • dreoilin

    “Personally it took me a while to work out if it was a real photo or a graphic.”–MJ

    Me too. If it was damaged in such a way at the corner, surely it would topple sideways? And why would the damage be worse at the bottom than at Floor 18?

    “Prove that”

    sez Larry, who can prove nothing to anyone.

    Don’t worry about the [approximate] number 83, honey, just post *your link to your best picture of the plane*.

  • dreoilin

    You didn’t answer these either, Lar-boy:

    That’s about the fifth time you’ve dragged in Craig. Why should his beliefs change the beliefs of the folk arguing here?

    and

    That’s about the fifth time you’ve mentioned the anti-war movement. Why should what they believe change anyone’s mind here? And how do you know what all of the anti-war folk individually believe?

  • crab

    Just so we are clear Larry, you have retreated from your wilder claim that Wtc1 fell _on_top_of_ Wtc7, to the case that during its progressive structural collapse it managed to somehow throw off enough heavy chunks to glance the side of Wtc7 leading to its rapid straight down collapse 7 hours later.

    The massive damage which you have exagerated, cursed and screamed about here for peoples doubts, was at times obscured by smoke and dust, yet stood for 7 HOURS only to be recorded by a handful of blurred off angle photographs, requireing speculative reconstructions to appear in faithful debunking articles.

    This accompanying breif comment by the buildings owner on the farce, you left completely uncommented btw –

    Larry Silverstien sums up:

    24 second clip

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

    “mmmm just pull it.. and we made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse”

  • Larry from St. Louis

    crab,

    you fucking moron … you’re so deafened by the noise of your 911 religion, you can’t even hear correctly … listen again to what Silverstein said … is your quote correct, you silly moron?

1 33 34 35 36 37 134

Comments are closed.