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).
“MJ, you’ll just move the goalposts”
I’m asking you for evidence that NIST provided computer models. A perfectly reasonable request, particularly since you had the gall to call me a liar for pointing out – correctly – that they did not.
“As Angrysoba noted above, “I was annoyed when MJ asked me to find evidence of funerals and body parts of passengers at the Pentagon and wouldn’t accept newspaper reports of funerals.””
And as I’m sure angrysoba will concede, I have responded perfectly adequately to that – twice! I suspect he simply overlooked it the first time.
“You’re a dishonest religious nut”
Yawn. You are clearly rattled. Computer models anyone?
MJ, I’ll get back to you in about 2 hours.
I’m to bed now so take your time Larry. I think you’ll need it.
well i’m working and the girlfriend needs some luvin
i’ll try to work you in
“The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure.”
From: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Therefore the models did not address the collapse, only the conditions in the area from the impact points to the top of the buildings. Well well.
Hey Larry,
I hope you’re not mixing business and pleasure?
“University of Manchester, UK, professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response.
‘NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost, ‘ he said”.
http://www.nce.co.uk/wtc-investigators-resist-call-for-collapse-visualisation/537313.article
From the same article:
“But it [NIST] said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated”.
Heck, that’s a pity.
MJ, thank you for bringing up Colin Bailey. So in 2005 he stated he had problems with NIST’s methodology. Fine – although other professionals differ. But two things –
1. Has he said anything on this in the last 5 years; and
2. He doesn’t seem to believe in your supersecretnanothermite claim, does he? That is, he doesn’t believe in the grand conspiracy theory, does he? If that were the case, we’d have heard something from him since then. He would be sitting on such valuable information!
Why don’t you give him a call just to check?
MJ, I’m not going to provide you with anything new – I just wanted a chance to go down this thread.
In any event, it would seem like it is time for people like you to start telling us what you think really happened and why.
For starters, if they had already brought down the Towers with super-thermite, after the plane crashes, why would they have wanted to destroy WTC7, where admittedly no plane had crashed? Can you answer that question?
“The building went straight down into its own footprint. What went outwards was dust. The concrete just turned to dust. The people clearing up found no pieces of concrete bigger than a house brick.
Here’s a pic from your favourite site: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.h5.jpg. WTC7 hasn’t even been covered in enough dust for it to be visible on the roof.”
The computer I am using is a bit crap so I can’t see the picture you posted but I don’t understand the point you’re making.
There was no dust on the roof? Even if that’s true it warrants a “So what?” The WTC1 building didn’t simply collapse “into its own footprints” massive sections of the building can BE CLEARLY SEEN peeling of the tower and collapsing against the side of WTC7. There are several videos of this. No, it didn’t land on the roof of WTC7 but that building was very tall.
Thanks guys (Clark and crab).
I’ll be back shortly, but not necessarily on this thread.
A decidedly muted performance from the shills last night.
Can you wonder at it?I just checked out the Debunking For Dummies film and those disinfo guys now seem so pathetic it’s almost cruel on my part to even engage with them.They’re simply not remotely qualified to discuss these topics.
The topics I mean are connected to the very idea of what it means to be human and therefore cannot realistically be tackled by people who have no real conception of history or philosophy or indeed their own humanity.
Check out the film link on this page by suraci.It’s the film,Defamation,by an Israeli film-maker called Yoav Shamir.
In narrative terms it follows a group of Israeli teenagers on a visit to Auschwitz.In philosophical terms it tries to make the case for a decoupling of two concepts the shills are very keen for us to conflate.These are the concepts of anti-semitism and anti-Zionism.
For radical Zionists the two concepts overlap so that all criticism of Israel is evidence of latent but persistent anti-semitism.ADL activists led by Abe Foxman are seen propagating this view throughout the movie.But anti-Zionists like Finkelstein,Meirsheimer,Walt and David Hirsch also take part.
Hirsch has a memorable near death experience at an Israeli Foreign Office event organized by the Zionist establishment to discuss these issues as they are raised in the Lobby book by Meirsheimer and Walt.
After three days where speaker after speaker had denounced the book as anti-semitic Hirsch got up and reminded them that world anger against Israel comes not from anti-semitism but from disgust at Israel’s use of state power to humiliate,occupy and punish the Palestinians in W.Bank and Gaza.
You can hear a pin drop! Hirsch holds his ground and notes the irony of his situation to Shamir that back home in UK he’s often denounced as a neo-con,Israel-supporting,anti-Palestinian racist.
The film has both humour and at times unbearable poignancy.There are other unforgettable moments and you’re unlikely not to sit down and think after you’ve watched.
http://suraci.blogspot.com/?zx=18d144f264b02d35
Personally it seems to me that elite planners wanted a an aggressive militant state in the Holy Land to forward their long-term geostrategic agenda.Those elites are still working to cultivate the siege mentality that feeds that militancy in Israel in the next generation today.
No mention whatever is made of 911 but the film will be resonant for anyone interested in the issues that attend that event.
“There was no dust on the roof? Even if that’s true it warrants a “So what?””
My point was that if not a great deal of dust made it WTC7, what chance would heavy debis have? t would have to be a huge chunk of steel, which would still be lying around after the impact. But the steel sections didn’t ‘peel’. They went straight down. Also, WTC7 was shielded from the twin towers by WTC6, which was undamaged.
“Why don’t you give him a call just to check?”
Larry, your preoccupation with personalities rather than evidence is both tiresome and revealing. I quoted Bailey to hammer home the point that NIST did not publish models of the collapse to support its analysis, which was the point at issue. You called me a liar for suggesting such a thing. I take this pathetic dissembling to mean that you now accept that NIST did not publish models. Thank you.
I think this piece by Elizabeth Woodworth is a little optimistic – but perhaps there is a sea change.
http://tinyurl.com/genieoutofbottle
Vronsky,
No, the 911 Truth Movement continues to hemorrhage followers.
Yes, there are, once in a while, a few mentions in certain media outlets. I’m thinking mostly of Russia Today, which is clearly a propaganda arm of the Kremlin.
As mentioned above, you people seem to not understand the concept of peer review. As a refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
One indication that that Danish professor is batshit crazy is that he thinks his paper has been peer reviewed. At a minimum, the silly goose does not understand how science works. He submitted his paper to a vanity publication, which was happy to publish his paper for something like $800.
You likewise can have your paper published there for $800.
Then I suppose you’ll be able to say that you’ve published a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
You people make this too easy.
MJ,
In any event, it would seem like it is time for people like you to start telling us what you think really happened and why.
For starters, if they had already brought down the Towers with super-thermite, after the plane crashes, why would they have wanted to destroy WTC7, where admittedly no plane had crashed? Can you answer that question?
Larry: while I think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate pretty conclusively that the official account is wrong, I don’t think there is enough evidence to state with any certainty what did actually happen. There are several hypotheses out there, take your pick. One or any may have a grain of truth, who knows? I have a few ideas but they’re only speculation.
“why would they have wanted to destroy WTC7”
Some have speculated that WTC7 was the operational centre and destroying it was an efficient way of destroying the evidence. Maybe it was so Silverstein could collect the insurance money. Maybe it was for some other reason. What do I know?
Dreoilin,
Songs of freedom 🙂
Larry,
I didn’t ‘blow’ your cover even though I mentioned ‘debunking the debunkers’ several times.
But thanks for spreading my ‘little black helicopter’ around.
Some people say to me, ‘Mark, why waste your time on 911. So where does this absurd
driving force come from?
I believe 911 was so shocking, so frightening that for a while, several years in fact, 911 affected
thinking profoundly. It warped the mind and like a genie out of the bottle, invoked an overpowering human feeling of revenge.
That change, that combined strength of feeling (as witnessed here on this thread)warped rationality
and that lead to war on Iraq and the murder of so many innocent,
still in pain, still suffering, still dying, nine years on.
I feel that pain – it never relents, it never goes away; a constant reminder and the reason I am here.
I spoke with my bother-in-law Dave. His only knowledge of 911 was watching the newsflash in disbelief.
Without prompting from me, he said ‘how can a building turn to dust” before your very eyes.”
Well – how can it?
Mark, have you learned nothing in this thread?
That’s the classic argument from personal incredulity (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity)
Dust?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
In the second video, it appears that they’re using water sprayers to control the dust.
“That’s the classic argument from personal incredulity”
The problem being, of course, that the fallacy cuts both ways, and can apply to either side of the argument.
I have to say that I’m pretty sure that neither you nor angrywotsit yourselves believe the official account of 9/11 – else it is difficult to explain the energy (and vacuity) of your posting here. Conjurors don’t believe in magic.
Vronsky, once again you make no sense.
I just looked at the thread above and I missed the fact that you attempted to imply that the BBC also might be part of the conspiracy.
You are a loon.
For the next Honours List, I propose Sir Lawrence of Saint Louis, for at least a KBE, for services gratefully rendered to Empire. Who will second this?
“My point was that if not a great deal of dust made it WTC7, what chance would heavy debis have? t would have to be a huge chunk of steel, which would still be lying around after the impact. But the steel sections didn’t ‘peel’. They went straight down. Also, WTC7 was shielded from the twin towers by WTC6, which was undamaged.”
Massive sections of the building DID, indeed, peel outwards as you can see in this video. And if you think WTC6 shielded WTC7 could you explain the relative heights of the two buildings?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8
You can just click on my name if you want to watch the video.
“Without prompting from me…”
In other words you knew immediately it was an inside job-controlled demolition in which thermite dissolved a steel building into dust and even your brother-in-law knew it?
Mark, you’re a little full of yourself. Does anyone ever tell you that?
Message in a bottle for Suhayl:
http://tinyurl.com/ygwt9q4
…to be continued…
“Mark, you’re a little full of yourself. Does anyone ever tell you that?”
Oh my gosh, it’s true – Americans have no sense of irony.
Vronsky, that’s an anti-American fail.
Angrysoba is not an American.
So, in other words, you’re not generalizing on the basis of 1 out of 305 million people … it’s much worse than that … you’re generalizing on the basis of someone who’s not 1 out of 305 million people.
No big deal; this happens quite often.